Process API Updates (JEP 102) (original) (raw)

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
Tue Mar 25 13:30:58 UTC 2014

On 25/03/2014 09:50, Peter Levart wrote:

:

It would just require the API specification to strengthen it's guarantees on some methods: for example destroyForcibly() would guarantee forcible termination. It might require an additional method like destroyNicely() or terminateNicely() which would guarantee a kind of termination where victim process could clean-up. This is something that has been looked a few times. When we added destroyForcibly then we had to allow for the possibility that it might not be immediate so this is the reason for the current wording in the javadoc. It's not too bad when used with the timed waitFor. I had hoped we would also add a destroyGracefully but we didn't come up with a good solution on Windows at the time.

:

The worst thing is to have an entirely separate API that does not interoperate with old API. I think the old API is not so bad. It just lacks some features and it's implementation could be revamped a bit. I agree but I know that Roger has been trying out a few API approaches with a view to coming up with a nice solution.

-Alan.

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list