RFR: 8023447: change specification to allow RMI activation to be optional

[Alan Bateman]

On 05/09/2013 23:46, Stuart Marks wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please review this specification-only change to allow RMI activation 
> to be optional. RMI activation, unlike the rest of RMI, pretty much 
> requires the ability to fork processes at will. This causes 
> difficulties in certain situations, such as in small embedded 
> configurations. Activation is typically unnecessary in such 
> environments, hence it makes sense for it to be optional.
Just to put more context on this, this is a continuation (and updated 
proposal) to the issue/proposal that Steve Flores brought up here back 
in July [1].

Stuart's revised proposal looks okay. It initially feels like UOE is 
being allowed to be thrown from too many places (the ActiviationID and 
ActiviationGroupID constructors in particular) but once you get into the 
maze then they seem to be necessary. The proposal does mean there is a 
"porting effort" when you want to target a device that doesn't have the 
resources to fork new VMs but it shouldn't be too bad.

-Alan.

[1] 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-July/018851.html