jmx-dev Need reviewer for 6888179: Separate out dependency on CORBA

[daniel fuchs]

Hi Alan,

This looks OK to me.

Cheers,

-- daniel
JMX, SNMP, Java, etc... http://blogs.sun.com/jmxetc

Alan Bateman wrote:
> 
> As you know, we need to do some re-organization of code in preparation 
> for the jdk build generating modules. One dependency that I would like 
> to separate out is the dependency on RMI-IIOP and CORBA in the JSR-160 
> implementation. The motivation is a possible "management" module that 
> wouldn't require "corba" to be installed. The webrev with the proposed 
> changes is here:
>  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alanb/6888179/webrev.00/
> 
> In summary, the RMI connectors are changed to use a helper class for 
> RMI-IIOP and CORBA. The methods defined by the helper class have all 
> CORBA types erased and they simply delegate to a proxy which has an 
> implementation in the com.sun.jmx.remote.protocol.iiop package that is 
> either present or not present. When not present then methods requiring 
> the transport fail gracefully indicating that the iiop protocol is not 
> supported.
> 
> I ran into two issues that I should point:
> 
> 1. The bytecode for ProxyStub._releaseReply in RMIConnector didn't match 
> the source in the comments. The actual code has a null check that was 
> missing from the source. I've updated this for any future maintainers.
> 
> 2. RMIConnector.findRMIServerJRMP used PortableRemoteObject.narrow to 
> check the stub type, which I'm sure was an oversight.
> 
> I've run all the tests in test/javax/management/remote (good test 
> coverage btw) and don't see any regressions.
> 
> Éamonn, Daniel - would you have cycles to review?
> 
> -Alan.