From jaroslav.bachorik at oracle.com Mon May 25 09:43:43 2015 From: jaroslav.bachorik at oracle.com (Jaroslav Bachorik) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 09:43:43 +0000 (UTC) Subject: jmx-dev =?utf-8?q?=5BPING=5D__Dropping_support_for_the_IIOP_trans?= =?utf-8?q?port_from_the_RMI=09connector?= References: <52D53B09.1020604@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi, I am reviving this thread to give you the final heads-up before moving on with removing the IIOP transport from the JMX RMI connector. If you have any objections it is the time to speak now. -JB- [original message] Alan Bateman writes: In JDK 8 we updated the JMX Remote API and the RMI connector so that support for the IIOP transport is optional. RI and Oracle JDK builds continue to support it, builds of Compact Profiles leave it out (as CORBA and a number of its dependencies are not defined for any subset Profile of Java SE). I would like to bring up the topic of dropping support for the IIOP transport completely, that is change the RMI connector so that it only supports the default JRMP transport. From what I can tell then this isn't used very widely and I'm curious if anyone would really notice or care. The rational for doing this is the same reason that we downgraded it to optional, it's problematic for our modularity efforts due to the CORBA Tie classes in javax.management.remote.rmi. So is anyone using it in a way that would be highly disruptive if it were removed in JDK 9? -Alan. [---] From Alan.Bateman at oracle.com Mon May 25 10:08:52 2015 From: Alan.Bateman at oracle.com (Alan Bateman) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 11:08:52 +0100 Subject: jmx-dev [PING] Dropping support for the IIOP transport from the RMI connector In-Reply-To: References: <52D53B09.1020604@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5562F4B4.3080403@oracle.com> On 25/05/2015 10:43, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: > Hi, > > I am reviving this thread to give you the final heads-up before moving on > with removing the IIOP transport from the JMX RMI connector. > > If you have any objections it is the time to speak now. > > -JB- > Just to add to this. JDK 9 builds don't include the IIOP transport so that the RMIConnector has only support the default transport since jdk9-b01. So far then I don't think anyone has noticed, at least I'm not aware of any bug reports. -Alan. From stevenschlansker at gmail.com Tue May 26 17:34:32 2015 From: stevenschlansker at gmail.com (Steven Schlansker) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 10:34:32 -0700 Subject: jmx-dev [PING] Dropping support for the IIOP transport from the RMI connector In-Reply-To: <5562F4B4.3080403@oracle.com> References: <52D53B09.1020604@oracle.com> <5562F4B4.3080403@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5EFB578A-EBEC-482A-85D0-3EC961FFB1DB@gmail.com> On May 25, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 25/05/2015 10:43, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am reviving this thread to give you the final heads-up before moving on >> with removing the IIOP transport from the JMX RMI connector. >> >> If you have any objections it is the time to speak now. >> >> -JB- >> > Just to add to this. JDK 9 builds don't include the IIOP transport so that the RMIConnector has only support the default transport since jdk9-b01. So far then I don't think anyone has noticed, at least I'm not aware of any bug reports. Since this is active development around changing the supported transports in Java 9, maybe this is an opportune moment for me to bring up a request I made early this year -- promoting the JMXMP transport from jmxremote_optional into the core? http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jmx-dev/2015-January/000794.html Unlike IIOP, there is a clear use case where it is strictly superior to the default RMI transport (when you connect with a firewall or NAT between the application server and your workstation, or a virtual networking setup like Docker) I apologize for the thread hijack, but I didn't get any replies earlier, and it'd be fantastically useful IMO. Thanks, Steven From staffan.larsen at oracle.com Tue May 26 18:49:18 2015 From: staffan.larsen at oracle.com (Staffan Larsen) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 20:49:18 +0200 Subject: jmx-dev [PING] Dropping support for the IIOP transport from the RMI connector In-Reply-To: <5EFB578A-EBEC-482A-85D0-3EC961FFB1DB@gmail.com> References: <52D53B09.1020604@oracle.com> <5562F4B4.3080403@oracle.com> <5EFB578A-EBEC-482A-85D0-3EC961FFB1DB@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Steven, We started evaluating the inclusion of JMXMP in the JDK last year for the reasons you site. Unfortunately we came to the conclusion that the JMXMP code base in its current form was not suited for inclusion in the JDK. Improving the code base to modernize and remove technical debt was deemed too costly. Of course if other people want to take on the task we are open to contributions. Regards, /Staffan > On 26 maj 2015, at 19:34, Steven Schlansker wrote: > > > On May 25, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > >> >> On 25/05/2015 10:43, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am reviving this thread to give you the final heads-up before moving on >>> with removing the IIOP transport from the JMX RMI connector. >>> >>> If you have any objections it is the time to speak now. >>> >>> -JB- >>> >> Just to add to this. JDK 9 builds don't include the IIOP transport so that the RMIConnector has only support the default transport since jdk9-b01. So far then I don't think anyone has noticed, at least I'm not aware of any bug reports. > > Since this is active development around changing the supported transports in Java 9, maybe this is an opportune moment for me to bring up a request I made early this year -- promoting the JMXMP transport from jmxremote_optional into the core? > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jmx-dev/2015-January/000794.html > > Unlike IIOP, there is a clear use case where it is strictly superior to the default RMI transport (when you connect with a firewall or NAT between the application server and your workstation, or a virtual networking setup like Docker) > > I apologize for the thread hijack, but I didn't get any replies earlier, and it'd be fantastically useful IMO. > > Thanks, > Steven >