Review Request: 7198070 Eliminate static dependency from JMX to java.beans.ConstructorProperties

[Mandy Chung]

Hi Eamonn,

Thanks for the review and the information.

On 9/13/2012 9:48 AM, Eamonn McManus wrote:
> If at all possible, it would be better to split out
> ConstructorProperties into a separable dependency so that JMX could
> depend on just that. The idea that a profile with JMX but not
> JavaBeans is almost but not quite exactly like a profile with both
> seems rather user-hostile.

The current jdk modularization is being done that way.  java.beans is 
split between the base module and the desktop module and 
ConstructorProperties is included in the base.  We're working on 
addressing the split package issue so that the platform can be 
modularized cleanly.  That's the motivation for this bug fix.

>
> If it is not possible to make that separation then the method
> CompositeBuilderViaConstructor.applicable should return immediately if
> constructorPropertiesClass == null, with an explanation string like
> "@ConstructorProperties annotation not available". That will produce a
> better exception message than the "no constructor has
> @ConstructorProperties annotation" that the code will produce as it
> stands even if constructors do have that annotation.

Good idea.  I have fixed that.
> On line 1161 you could write valueMethod.invoke(a) instead of
> valueMethod.invoke(a, new Object[0]).

Fixed and the updated webrev is at:
    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk8/webrevs/7198070/webrev.01/

> We faced a similar problem in the past where standalone JMX might be
> running on a Java version that did not have
> java.beans.ConstructorProperties. At that time we considered
> specifying that any @ConstructorProperties annotation, regardless of
> what package it came from, would have the same effect. Since you are
> accessing the annotation by reflection anyway it might be time to
> resuscitate this idea. Then users could at least insulate themselves
> from no-JavaBeans breakage by using their own definition of
> @ConstructorProperties.

I see two scenarios:
1. the application being instrumented is running on an older version of JRE
2. the jmx client accessing the model-specific types from a JVM being 
managed running 2 different versions of JRE

This raises an interesting question - if @CP is part of the standalone 
JMX (e.g. javax.management.PropertyNames), would that issue exist?  Alan 
and I have asked ourselves if we need to bring back 
javax.management.PropertyNames but it wasn't clear to us.  Your feedback 
and any information/requirement info from the past relevant to this will 
be valuable.  I'll file a separate RFE for it once the requirement 
becomes clear that the jmx/serviceability team can follow up.

I'd like to get the fix to eliminate the dependency into jdk8 separated 
from this RFE.

Thanks
Mandy