code review for 7067811: Update demo/sample code to state it should not be used for production (original) (raw)

Steve Poole spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Fri Aug 12 02:11:31 PDT 2011

On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 09:21 +0200, Nils Loodin wrote:

Ah, you're right, i forgot the samples directory. And as for the text being in each source file, that's how I undestood the requirement from Aurelio after some email conversation. Looping him in and he might shed some light on it.

I'm sorry to moan about this - but please post the details behind the requirement. Unilateral and undocumented changes are not useful to people outside Oracle.

Discussions should happen on the mailing list not off it.

As I understood On 08/11/2011 05:58 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > Nils Loodin wrote: >> Added a comment in each demo source file stating that the code below >> is unfit for production. >> Made a separate comment blog from the copyright one to make it stand >> out more and be more warning-like :) >> >> >> >> /Nisse >> > Nils - is it just demo code or do you plan to do this to sample code > too (sample code is in src/share/sample/**)? One thing that isn't > clear to me is why this needs to be added to every file. Seems like a > warning in each demo's README should be sufficient. > > One specific file in the webrev that might need special treatment is > hprofbspec.h. That header file is essentially the "spec" to the > HPROF binary format (sad I know). It just seems a bit strange to add a > comment saying that it "has been deliberately simplified" to this file > specifically. > > -Alan.

More information about the serviceability-dev mailing list