Closed ctrueden closed 10 years ago
Maybe the startup failure itself is not a problem, but certainly the scary "THE_PROCESS_HAS_FORKED" etc. messages are undesired? What do you think, @dscho?
Whoa... If you pass --foo
it should be added as an ImageJ option, not JVM option. Will investigate tomorrow.
Heh... This is actually correct, because the code was designed to put all options that are known not to be ImageJ 1.x options into the Java options part:
IIRC it was your idea, @ctrueden ;-)
So maybe you want to invert the logic and pass only all known Java options to the JVM when there is no --
? It's doable...
Right. The original rationale was that IJ1 had a relatively small set of known options, and we could always whitelist them. But with the extensible nature of IJ2, it makes more sense to instead whitelist the Java options, which while extensive are relatively more static by comparison. Doable, but not the highest priority unfortunately. Issue #14 filed.
So let's close this ticket in deference to #14.
But, the scary THE_PROCESS_HAS_FORKED
errors are still present, no? So isn't this issue still valid?
But, the scary
THE_PROCESS_HAS_FORKED
errors are still present, no?
Well, no, once we handle the arguments properly, there will not be a fallback to system JVM, and consequentially also no scary errors... ;-)