On 08/02/2016 07:02, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 2/5/16 4:54 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Regardless of whether I agree with this API or not, it does, as
Stuart points
out, require a JEP and to go through the normal rigorous process of
determining
whether an API is suitable for inclusion in the Java platform.
Note, it was Thomas Stüfe who suggested a JEP for this.
It's a good question.
It is an explicit non-goal of JEP 260 to propose replacements of
internal APIs. Providing a standard API for handling control-C or OS
signals is of course strongly connected with the efforts in JEP 260 but
isn't a goal.
The JEP process provides guidelines as to when a JEP should be drafted.
In this case it seems like the API is significant and that a JEP would
make be very useful. If nothing else, the JEP could document
alternatives considered, like for example a specific API for handling
control-C/VM termination and other specific use-cases as opposed to
exposing OS signals to applications.
-Alan
