jmx-dev 8001048: Allow IIOP transport to be optional

[Dmitry Samersoff]

Alan,

Does it make sense to move the check

if (!IIOPHelper.isAvailable())

inside

IIOPHelper.exportObject/unexportObject  ?

-Dmitry

On 2012-12-15 01:33, Alan Bateman wrote:
> 
> I hope this mail doesn't cause Éamonn to choke on his coffee.
> 
> The JMX Remote API specifies that the RMI connector support the IIOP
> transport (in addition to the default RMI transport, JRMP). This is
> highly problematic for our efforts to modularize the platform because of
> the dependency on CORBA and the CORBA Tie classes in the
> javax.management.remote.rmi package. It is also problematic for the
> Compact Profiles [1] effort for JDK 8.
> 
> This issue has been on the radar for a long time, in fact it is more
> than 3 years ago when we pushed the changes to separate out the
> dependencies on CORBA. It's time to move to the next step, and to that
> end, we are planning to do a Maintenance Release of the JMX Remote API
> to make support for the IIOP transport optional. The changes proposed
> here are the first cut at the changes to the javadoc and some minor
> changes to RMIIIOPServerImpl  that we missed when doing the original
> work to separate out the dependencies. I've also used the opportunity to
> change the tests so that they run when RMI-IIOP is not present.
> 
> The webrev with the changes is here:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alanb/8001048/webrev/index.html
> 
> On RMIIIOPServerImpl then the reason that toStub and the close* methods
> throw NoSuchObjectException is because that the the IOException that
> would be thrown if RMI-IIOP were present and the object is not exported.
> 
> On the tests then I removed System.exit from several tests because this
> isn't allowed in jtreg tests (we probably didn't notice this because the
> tests haven't been failing).
> 
> -Alan.
> 
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/161


-- 
Dmitry Samersoff
Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia
* Give Rabbit time, and he'll always get the answer