jmx-dev [PING] Dropping support for the IIOP transport from the RMI connector

[Staffan Larsen]

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 <stevenschlansker at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On May 25, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com> 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
>