Hi Roger
This looks great already. My feedback is about process destruction:
Why isn't ProcessHandle::isDestroyForcible a static method?
For ProcessHandle::destroy and Process::destroy, I'd like to propose
replacing
"Whether the process represented by this Process object is forcibly
terminated or not is implementation dependent."
with:
"The process represented by this Process object is forcibly terminated
if and only if isDestroyForcible returns true."
Process::destroyForcibly contains the following phrase: "The default
implementation of this method invokes destroy() and so may not forcibly
terminate the process."
Why doesn't the default implementation throw
UnsupportedOperationException if forcible termination is not supported
on/implemented for the current platform? If I write code like:
process.destroyForcibly().waitFor(), I'd assume it would finish in a
timely manner, but due to the default implementation, this may actually
not finish at all.
Kind regards, Anthony
On 10/02/2015 0:25, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi,
After a protracted absence from working on JEP 102, the updated API draft
provides access to process hierarchies and individual process
information;
as permitted by the OS. The relationship between Process and
ProcessHandle
is clarified and the security model validated.
Both Processes and ProcessHandles can be monitored using
CompletableFuture
for termination and to trigger additional actions on Process exit.
Information about processes includes the total cputime, starttime, user,
executable, and arguments.
Please review and comment:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/ph-apidraft/
Thanks, Roger
