jmx-dev Need reviewer for 6888179: Separate out dependency on CORBA
Daniel.Fuchs at Sun.COM
Mon Oct 26 04:38:26 PDT 2009
This looks OK to me.
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:
> 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
> 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?
More information about the jmx-dev