On 7/10/2013 4:33 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>The change looks reasonable. In the class spec for MXBean, suggest to
>rename
>
>interface ThisIsNotMXBean{}
>
>to something more explicit
>
>interface NonPublicInterfaceNotMXBean{}
Since this was a part of the CCC review which was approve
On 07/09/2013 09:42 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
> On 7/9/13 3:02 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>> Please, review the final version of the changes:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8010285/webrev.07
>>
>
> The change looks reasonable. In the class spec for MXBean, suggest to
> rename
>
>int
On 7/9/13 3:02 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the final version of the changes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8010285/webrev.07
The change looks reasonable. In the class spec for MXBean, suggest to
rename
interface ThisIsNotMXBean{}
to something more explicit
i
Please, review the final version of the changes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8010285/webrev.07
It addresses all the concerns raised during the CCC process.
I will need at least one official OpenJDK reviewer for the integration.
Thanks,
-JB-
On 6/18/13 1:27 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On Tue 18 Jun 2013 12:30:07 PM CEST, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On Tue 18 Jun 2013 12:25:35 PM CEST, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Jaroslav,
I've added the tests for the proper behaviour when the
"com.sun.jmx.mbeans.allowNonPublic" system property is set to
On Tue 18 Jun 2013 12:30:07 PM CEST, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> On Tue 18 Jun 2013 12:25:35 PM CEST, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Hi Jaroslav,
>>
>>> I've added the tests for the proper behaviour when the
>>> "com.sun.jmx.mbeans.allowNonPublic" system property is set to true.
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.ja
On Tue 18 Jun 2013 12:25:35 PM CEST, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
> Hi Jaroslav,
>
> > I've added the tests for the proper behaviour when the
> > "com.sun.jmx.mbeans.allowNonPublic" system property is set to true.
> >
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8010285/webrev.05/
>
> Thanks for adding the tes
Hi Jaroslav,
> I've added the tests for the proper behaviour when the
> "com.sun.jmx.mbeans.allowNonPublic" system property is set to true.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8010285/webrev.05/
Thanks for adding the test. I haven't looked at the source again,
I trust nothing changed there
On 06/07/2013 11:07 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8010285/webrev.04
>
> Hi Jaroslav,
>
> This looks good to me.
>
> I assume you've been running both the java.lang & javax.management
> unit tests & JCK (java.lang JCK also has some test cases that
> indirectly i
Hi,
The fix is to address https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8016221
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjiang/JDK-8016221/webrev.00/
Instead to use a fixed port to run a JMX connector, we specify the port
as 0:
JMXServiceURL url = new JMXServiceURL("rmi", null, 0);
to allow JMX to se
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8010285/webrev.04
Hi Jaroslav,
This looks good to me.
I assume you've been running both the java.lang & javax.management
unit tests & JCK (java.lang JCK also has some test cases that
indirectly involve JMX introspection).
Also, maybe you could add a test
On Thu 06 Jun 2013 06:06:52 PM CEST, shanliang wrote:
> Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>> On Thu 06 Jun 2013 05:22:31 PM CEST, shanliang wrote:
>>
>>> Jaroslav,
>>>
>>> It is now OK for me about the MBean interface searching in the
>>> Introspector.
>>>
>>> Here is my comment on JMX.java:
>>> 206 -- 212
Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On Thu 06 Jun 2013 05:22:31 PM CEST, shanliang wrote:
Jaroslav,
It is now OK for me about the MBean interface searching in the
Introspector.
Here is my comment on JMX.java:
206 -- 212 you added a call
Introspector.testComplianceMBeanInterface(interfaceClass);
I
On Thu 06 Jun 2013 05:22:31 PM CEST, shanliang wrote:
> Jaroslav,
>
> It is now OK for me about the MBean interface searching in the
> Introspector.
>
> Here is my comment on JMX.java:
> 206 -- 212 you added a call
> Introspector.testComplianceMBeanInterface(interfaceClass);
>
> It is better to
Jaroslav,
It is now OK for me about the MBean interface searching in the Introspector.
Here is my comment on JMX.java:
206 -- 212 you added a call
Introspector.testComplianceMBeanInterface(interfaceClass);
It is better to move this call to:
MBeanServerInvocationHandler.newProxyInstance
be
On Wed 05 Jun 2013 07:54:10 PM CEST, shanliang wrote:
> Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> On 6/5/13 3:55 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
class A extends B { ...}
>class B implements AMBean {...}
>>> Yes, I see it now. However, when you check the JMX specification, page
>>> 50 onwards, the current imple
Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 6/5/13 3:55 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
class A extends B { ...}
>class B implements AMBean {...}
Yes, I see it now. However, when you check the JMX specification, page
50 onwards, the current implementation does not seem to be correct.
"3. If MyClass is an instance of
On 6/5/13 3:55 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
class A extends B { ...}
>class B implements AMBean {...}
Yes, I see it now. However, when you check the JMX specification, page
50 onwards, the current implementation does not seem to be correct.
"3. If MyClass is an instance of the DynamicMBean inte
On Wed 05 Jun 2013 02:52:36 PM CEST, shanliang wrote:
> Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>> On Wed 05 Jun 2013 11:34:05 AM CEST, shanliang wrote:
>>
>>> Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>
On 05/30/2013 09:32 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> On Wed 29 May 2013 07:44:34 PM CEST, Dan
Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On Wed 05 Jun 2013 11:34:05 AM CEST, shanliang wrote:
Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 05/30/2013 09:32 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On Wed 29 May 2013 07:44:34 PM CEST, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 5/29/13 7:17 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On Wed 05 Jun 2013 11:34:05 AM CEST, shanliang wrote:
> Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>> On 05/30/2013 09:32 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed 29 May 2013 07:44:34 PM CEST, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>>>
On 5/29/13 7:17 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> On Wed 29 May 2013 05:33:21 PM CEST,
Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 05/30/2013 09:32 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On Wed 29 May 2013 07:44:34 PM CEST, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 5/29/13 7:17 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On Wed 29 May 2013 05:33:21 PM CEST, Eamonn McManus wrote:
I would recommend against changing
On 05/30/2013 09:32 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> On Wed 29 May 2013 07:44:34 PM CEST, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> On 5/29/13 7:17 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>> On Wed 29 May 2013 05:33:21 PM CEST, Eamonn McManus wrote:
I would recommend against changing the code to do additional calls to
On Wed 29 May 2013 07:44:34 PM CEST, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
> On 5/29/13 7:17 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>> On Wed 29 May 2013 05:33:21 PM CEST, Eamonn McManus wrote:
>>> I would recommend against changing the code to do additional calls to
>>> Class.forName during MBean introspection. As I recall w
On 5/29/13 7:17 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On Wed 29 May 2013 05:33:21 PM CEST, Eamonn McManus wrote:
I would recommend against changing the code to do additional calls to
Class.forName during MBean introspection. As I recall we made the
opposite change some years ago, both because Class.forNa
On Wed 29 May 2013 05:33:21 PM CEST, Eamonn McManus wrote:
> I would recommend against changing the code to do additional calls to
> Class.forName during MBean introspection. As I recall we made the
> opposite change some years ago, both because Class.forName can be slow
> (it may call out to a use
I would recommend against changing the code to do additional calls to
Class.forName during MBean introspection. As I recall we made the opposite
change some years ago, both because Class.forName can be slow (it may call
out to a user ClassLoader) and because it is a potential source of security
pro
Updated webrev - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8010285/webrev.01
It adds regtests and takes care of the comments from David and Shanliang.
-JB-
On 05/28/2013 04:22 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> The fix enforces the management interfaces (read MBean and MXBean
> interfaces) being public.
On 5/29/13 4:44 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On Wed 29 May 2013 03:38:59 PM CEST, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 5/29/13 1:18 PM, shanliang wrote:
Jaroslav,
Introspector.java
-
Line 496 - 515
It is good to do check:
(Modifier.isPublic(c.getModifiers()) ||
MBeanAnalyzer.ALLOW_
On Wed 29 May 2013 03:38:59 PM CEST, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
> On 5/29/13 1:18 PM, shanliang wrote:
>> Jaroslav,
>>
>> Introspector.java
>> -
>> Line 496 - 515
>> It is good to do check:
>> (Modifier.isPublic(c.getModifiers()) ||
>> MBeanAnalyzer.ALLOW_NONPUBLIC_MBEAN)
>> but i
On 5/29/13 1:18 PM, shanliang wrote:
Jaroslav,
Introspector.java
-
Line 496 - 515
It is good to do check:
(Modifier.isPublic(c.getModifiers()) ||
MBeanAnalyzer.ALLOW_NONPUBLIC_MBEAN)
but it is not necessary if an interface is not equal to clMBeanName.
is it possible to
On Wed 29 May 2013 01:18:50 PM CEST, shanliang wrote:
> Jaroslav,
>
> Introspector.java
> -
> Line 496 - 515
> It is good to do check:
> (Modifier.isPublic(c.getModifiers()) ||
> MBeanAnalyzer.ALLOW_NONPUBLIC_MBEAN)
> but it is not necessary if an interface is not equal to c
Jaroslav,
Introspector.java
-
Line 496 - 515
It is good to do check:
(Modifier.isPublic(c.getModifiers()) ||
MBeanAnalyzer.ALLOW_NONPUBLIC_MBEAN)
but it is not necessary if an interface is not equal to clMBeanName.
is it possible to simplify the method as:
private st
On Wed 29 May 2013 10:09:38 AM CEST, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Jaroslav,
>
> Just wondering why this needs to be public:
>
> + public static void testComplianceMBeanInterface(Class
> interfaceClass)
> + throws NotCompliantMBeanException{
> + StandardMBeanIntrospector.getInstance().ge
Hi Jaroslav,
Just wondering why this needs to be public:
+ public static void testComplianceMBeanInterface(Class
interfaceClass)
+ throws NotCompliantMBeanException{
+
StandardMBeanIntrospector.getInstance().getAnalyzer(interfaceClass);
+ }
Same question goes for the exi
And the webrev would come handy, of course.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8010285/webrev.00/
-JB-
On 05/28/2013 04:22 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> The fix enforces the management interfaces (read MBean and MXBean
> interfaces) being public. While this is defined in the specification it
36 matches
Mail list logo
