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
- Previous message: RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review
- Next message: RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
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
- Previous message: RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review
- Next message: RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]