RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review (original) (raw)

Peter Levart peter.levart at gmail.com
Wed May 20 08:39:04 UTC 2015

Hi Roger,

I looked at Martin's idea and I think that we don't need the AsyncExecutor at all (it already sounds like I hate it ;-). Using ManagedBlocker, a ForkJoinPoll can compensate and grow it's pool as needed when Process.waitFor() blocks. So we could leverage this feature and simplify things even further:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-sandbox/JDK-8046092-branch/webrev.03/

Passing a commonPool() to xxxAsync() methods is unneeded as the default is exactly the same. If CompletableFuture ever gets a feature to specify a default Executor for all it's descendants, then we can revisit this if needed.

What do you think?

Regards, Peter

On 05/19/2015 10:15 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:

The webrev, javadoc, and specdiffs have been updated to address recent recommendations:

Please review and comment: Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-ph/ (May 19) javadoc: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/ph-apidraft/ (May 19) Diffs of the spec/javadoc from previous draft: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/ph-diffs-2015-05-19/overview-summary.html

Thanks, Roger

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list