Re: RFR(L) 8136930: Simplify use of module-system options by custom launchers

2016-07-21 Thread Coleen Phillimore
On 7/21/16 3:25 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 20/07/2016 22:47, Coleen Phillimore wrote: Why aren't addmods and limitmods allowed be specified more than once on the command line and handled like the other ones? It's last one wins, typical for most options when repeated. I coul

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

2016-06-13 Thread Coleen Phillimore
On 6/10/16 8:16 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: 2016/6/10 7:00:55 -0700, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com: ... The difference between these module options and the other non-conforming options is that the others actually do something in the JVM. The module options only set properties for the

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

2016-06-10 Thread Coleen Phillimore
On 6/8/16 7:42 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: On Jun 8, 2016, at 3:37 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8136930/webrev.01/jdk/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/module/ModuleBootstrap.java.udiff.html + /** + * Gets and remove the named system

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

2016-06-10 Thread Coleen Phillimore
On 6/10/16 10:52 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 10/06/2016 15:00, Coleen Phillimore wrote: : The difference between these module options and the other non-conforming options is that the others actually do something in the JVM. The module options only set properties for the JDK. So we have

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

2016-06-10 Thread Coleen Phillimore
On 6/10/16 4:21 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 10/06/2016 19:25, Coleen Phillimore wrote: : Yes, I agree, it was the right choice to keep most of the implementation in the jdk libraries and only expose the jvm to what it needs to know. The JVM doesn't need to know these options. I a

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

2016-06-10 Thread Coleen Phillimore
On 6/9/16 2:26 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 08/06/2016 23:37, Coleen Phillimore wrote: : I have to ask why Hotspot convention was violated with this new option syntax? These options don't start with -X and the values aren't specified as : separators like the rest? Like -Xshare:

Re: RFR: Proposed jimage refresh for JDK9

2015-09-16 Thread Coleen Phillimore
Do you need a CCC request to add JVM functions and check with licensee engineering? Coleen Sent from my iPhone > On May 19, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Jim Laskey (Oracle) > wrote: > > >> On May 19, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 19/05/2015 17:43, Jim Laskey (Oracle) wrote: