RFR 9: 8132883 : The spec of allChildren/children of j.l.Process/ProcessHandle need to be relaxed

Chris Hegarty chris.hegarty at oracle.com
Thu Sep 10 14:34:57 UTC 2015

These spec clarifications look ok to me.

Being pedantic, should the ProcessHandle changes say 'the process’, rather than 'this process’?


On 10 Sep 2015, at 15:17, Roger Riggs <Roger.Riggs at oracle.com> wrote:

> Please review a couple of clarifications to the Process/ProcessHandle.allChildren methods.
> 8132883: Should not specify that non-alive processes have zero children.
>       That is OS specific and cannot/should not be guaranteed by the spec
> 8131763:
>  1. Requests a definition of 'direct' and 'indirect' children - direct children have the process as the parent
>  2. Requests that the streams be specified as either sequential or parallel - the streams are sequential
> Webrev:
>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-allchildren-8132883/
> Issues:
>   https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8132883
>   https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8131763
> Thanks, Roger

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list