On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:31:31 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> src/java.management/share/classes/javax/management/remote/package-info.java >> line 56: >> >>> 54: * JMXConnectorFactory} and, optionally, the Generic Connector >>> 55: * (not part of this bundle, see note below). >>> 56: * </ul> >> >> I wonder if we should keep the first part of the note - without the link. >> Something like: >> >> >> * >> * <p><u>Note</u>: The historical JMX Remote API specification >> * also defined an optional part; optional packages implementing >> * the optional part of the <em>JMX Remote API</em> >> * are not part of the <em>Java SE Platform</em>.</p> >> * >> ``` >> >> @AlanBateman do you think that would be helpful to keep? > > What would you think about dropping the sentence "The JMX Remote API allows > the use of different type of connectors" and drop "User-defined" from the > last list item? Doing that makes it much easier to say that the RMI > Connector is standard and that other Connectors are possible using using the > JMXConnectorFactory. It removes any discussion as to whether there are two or > three "difference types". > > I think we want "RMI Connector" to link to either RMIConnector or to the > java.management.rmi module description. > > My concern with having a historical note is that it invites readers to search > for these other "interesting" optional parts, and they will be disappointed. > If you do have a historical note then I think it need to say more than "are > not part of the Java Platform", it will also need to say that they are not > included in the JDK. OK - let's drop the historical note then. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25670#discussion_r2131770654
