[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-jmx-dev
Subject:    Re: jmx-dev Update MXBeans to allow for the possibility that ConstructorProperties is ignored?
From:       Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman () oracle ! com>
Date:       2013-01-24 12:25:19
Message-ID: 5101282F.6050201 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 24/01/2013 07:12, Mandy Chung wrote:
>
> I'm fine with the proposed spec change and look into the addition of 
> javax.management.ConstructorProperties later.   For now, to register 
> such a MXBean on a runtime of compact3 profile (without java.beans), 
> it will fail with NotCompliantMBeanException that helps diagnosing the 
> problem (unless a type can be reconstructed via other rules).
Thanks for the review. This is really just a mismatch between the 
compile-time and runtime environments, it would be caught by 
compile-time if compiled with "javac -profile compact3". I guess the 
only genuine scenario where it might be an issue is where someone runs a 
static analyzer over some code and it doesn't see the dependency because 
it's an annotation. In that case, it would fail when attempting to 
register the object and I hope is wouldn't be too difficult to diagnose 
(way back, in preparation for this, I tweaked the "applicable" method so 
that the exception is clearer when the annotation is not available).

I've pushed this change to get it out of the way. In the future then it 
does need exploring the implications of adding 
javax.management.ConstructorProperties. I think we would have an 
inconsistency if this were added without corresponding support in 
JavaBeans persistence.

-Alan
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]