RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review

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:


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 

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