RFR: 7069: Move rjmx bundle from application to core [v6]

[Christoph Langer]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 14:07:41 GMT, Alex Macdonald <aptmac at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This PR addresses JMC-6627 [[0]](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JMC-6627) in which it would be nice to bring some bundles from application to core. Most notably, **flightrecorder.configuration** which has a PR open for review [[1]](https://github.com/openjdk/jmc/pull/469) and is also tracked by JMC-7307 [[2]](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JMC-7307), and **RJMX** which is also tracked by JMC-7069 [[3]](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JMC-7069).
>> 
>> While #469 is still under review, I copied a branch of it and squashed all the commits down into one commit [[4]](https://github.com/openjdk/jmc/commit/72c08b3f65671d16fcbb1333a5782e10ac9c874f) for easier rebasing. Review comments for flightrecorder.configuration should go towards #469.  RJMX does have reliance on the flightrecorder.configuration changes (and some still in ui.common), so the second commit [[5]](https://github.com/openjdk/jmc/commit/f1c828dd46f24d9075cd3eedbf5a15bb9daf9a72) here is where this PR really starts. Once #469 is merged I can rebase this PR so that it handles RJMX.
>> 
>> As mentioned in JMC-6627 [[0]](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JMC-6627), because of the way Eclipse is intertwined with the RJMX code, this isn't a straightforward movement of classes. There are some parts that will need to stay on the side of jmc/application, but much of the code can come over to jmc/core with modification. This is accomplished by having a `rjmx.common` module in core, and keeping regular `rjmx` in application.
>> 
>> There are a handful of classes (e.g., `NameConverter`, `SyntheticAttributeRepository`, `SyntheticNotificationRepository`, ..) that use Eclipse to initialize them by parsing through values in plugin.xml, or use classes (like Persistence and Preferences) that are closely tied to the Eclipse RCP side of things. I brought over these classes to core and kept the code that initializes the values from extensions on the application side, so they could be set from application -> core when running JMC, but for third-party applications that want to use the RJMX code then they might not need/require this initialization.
>> 
>> [0] https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JMC-6627
>> [1] https://github.com/openjdk/jmc/pull/469
>> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JMC-7307
>> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JMC-7069
>> [4] https://github.com/openjdk/jmc/commit/72c08b3f65671d16fcbb1333a5782e10ac9c874f
>> [5] https://github.com/openjdk/jmc/commit/f1c828dd46f24d9075cd3eedbf5a15bb9daf9a72
>
> Alex Macdonald has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Update license headers flagged by the GH workflow

I played with this and figured some minor suggestions.

application/org.openjdk.jmc.rjmx/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF line 48:

> 46:    org.openjdk.jmc.rjmx.services.jfr.test,
> 47:    org.openjdk.jmc.rjmx.test",
> 48:  org.openjdk.jmc.rjmx.services.internal;x-friends:="org.openjdk.jmc.rjmx.test",

Line 55 ` org.openjdk.jmc.rjmx.subscription.storage.internal;x-internal:=true,` has to be removed, otherwise I see an error in Eclipse.

core/org.openjdk.jmc.rjmx.common/build.properties line 39:

> 37:                .
> 38: pde.match.rule.bundle=compatible
> 39: jre.compilation.profile = JavaSE-17

I think this line can go (jre.compilation.profile), at least it is not in the other build.properties of modules in core.

Please also add a linebreak in the end.

core/org.openjdk.jmc.rjmx.common/pom.xml line 42:

> 40: 	</parent>
> 41: 	<artifactId>rjmx.common</artifactId>
> 42:    <dependencies>

Can you put the <dependencies> section after <properties> to follow suit with the style of the other pom.xml files? Also, the indentation has a few flaws.

-------------

Changes requested by clanger (Committer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jmc/pull/531#pullrequestreview-1762127739
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jmc/pull/531#discussion_r1414516501
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jmc/pull/531#discussion_r1414484122
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jmc/pull/531#discussion_r1414485789