Hi Thomas,
On 23/06/2018 5:10 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Resent with the correct subject, sorry.
..Thomas
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
may I have reviews for this small enhancement to the jcmd
VM.classloader diagnostic command:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205531
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8205531-vm.classloader-tree-folding/webrev.00/webrev/
VM.classloaders prints a tree of class loaders. This tree can grow a
lot and become unwieldy, especially with a lot of similar loaders. One
prime example is the DelegatingClassLoader. It would be helpful were
all these loaders:
13114:
+-- <bootstrap>
|
+-- "platform", jdk.internal.loader.ClassLoaders$PlatformClassLoader
|
+-- "app", jdk.internal.loader.ClassLoaders$AppClassLoader
|
+-- test3.internals.InMemoryClassLoader
|
+-- jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingClassLoader
|
+-- jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingClassLoader
|
+-- jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingClassLoader
|
+-- jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingClassLoader
|
+-- jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingClassLoader
|
...... repeat 1495 times
folded into one:
13114:
+-- <bootstrap>
|
+-- "platform", jdk.internal.loader.ClassLoaders$PlatformClassLoader
|
+-- "app", jdk.internal.loader.ClassLoaders$AppClassLoader
|
+-- test3.internals.InMemoryClassLoader
|
+-- jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingClassLoader
(+ 1499 more)
I don't quite understand that. These are different instances aren't they
- potentially uniquely named? So if we gave all loaders a default name
(like we do threads) they would all show up expanded again - right?
typo:
! // we we add a
Not a review as I don't know any of the logic being modified.
David
Original idea by Bernd Eckenfels, see
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2018-May/023824.html
Thank you, Thomas
