[ mx4j-Bugs-1016117 ] Signature compliance for javax.management package

Bugs item #1016117, was opened at 2004-08-25 16:26
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by fbenoit
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=450647&aid=1016117&group_id=47745

Category: JMX implementation
Group: Release 2.0.1
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Florent BENOIT (fbenoit)
Assigned to: Simone Bordet (biorn_steedom)
Summary: Signature compliance for javax.management package

Initial Comment:
	Hi,

Signature of JMX api (inside Mx4J) differs from the JSR
160 api
Mx4j is included in JOnAS (http://jonas.objectweb.org).

To be fully J2EE compliant, the signatures of
javax.management packages should be compliant too with
the J2EE specification.

For example :

For the class : javax.management.MBeanFeatureInfo

http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/management/MBeanFeatureInfo.html
It should only implements Serializable but Mx4J class
implements both Serializable and Cloneable :
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/mx4j/mx4j/src/core/javax/management/MBeanFeatureInfo.java?rev=1.5&view=auto


javax.management.AttributeChangeNotificationFilter
should implements both NotificationFilter and
Serializable interfaces
http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/management/AttributeChangeNotificationFilter.html
even if NotificationFilter class extends Serializable.


The classes
javax.management.modelmbean.ModelMBeanAttributeInfo,
javax.management.modelmbean.ModelMBeanConstructorInfo,
javax.management.modelmbean.ModelMBeanNotificationInfo
should implement javax.management.DescriptorAccess and
java.lang.Cloneable
http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/management/modelmbean/ModelMBeanAttributeInfo.html
(even if superclass MBeanAttributeInfo already
implements Serializable).



javax.management.modelmbean.ModelMBeanInfo should not
implement Cloneable interface
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/mx4j/mx4j/src/core/javax/management/modelmbean/ModelMBeanInfo.java?rev=1.2&view=auto
http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/management/modelmbean/ModelMBeanInfo.html
Also, it should not contain the method getConstructor()


javax.management.modelmbean.ModelMBeanInfoSupport
should implement both ModelMBeanInfo and Serializable
interface 
http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/management/modelmbean/ModelMBeanInfoSupport.html

javax.management.modelmbean.RequiredModelMBean has a
wrong signature method for
removeAttributeChangeNotificationListener(javax.management.NotificationListener,java.lang.String)
public void
removeAttributeChangeNotificationListener(NotificationListener
listener, String attributeName) throws
RuntimeOperationsException, ListenerNotFoundException
should also throw MBeanException
http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/management/modelmbean/RequiredModelMBean.html#removeAttributeChangeNotificationListener(javax.management.NotificationListener,%20java.lang.String)

I wonder if you could change these signatures, need a
patch or something else in order to be 100% compliant
with API.

Regards,

Florent.

JOnAS project.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Florent BENOIT (fbenoit)
Date: 2004-08-30 12:27

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=1110913

  Hi,

Sorry for this late answer.
Yes TCK is run against MX4J. (And if you don't know, JMX
tests pass with the latest TCK/exclude list)

But there are still some problems on signature.(CVS version).

Note that Cloneable interface must not be a super interface
of javax.management.modelmbean.ModelBeanInfo interface.

http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/mx4j/mx4j/src/core/javax/management/modelmbean/ModelMBeanInfo.java?rev=1.3&view=markup

http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/management/modelmbean/ModelMBeanInfo.html
Note that the clone() method is used in RequiredModelMBean
class so it should impact changes.
for example :
m_modelMBeanInfo = (ModelMBeanInfo)modelMBeanInfo.clone();


I attach a patch in order that you see the signatures which
are still incorrect.

Also, I have used CVS version to get the changes and I have
a problem on IIOP as (in the build.xml) we run first rmic
with iiop and then iiop with POA model.
But if we don't want to use POA, there is a problem as the
classes are replaced by poa classes.
So POA model may be an option of compilation ? or model
without POA could be an option ?


Regards,

Florent

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Simone Bordet (biorn_steedom)
Date: 2004-08-28 14:42

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=128193

There were few bugs in the MX4J signature compliance tests
that hid errors behind warnings.
I have found few others signature mismatches, fixed and
committed them all.
I am closing this bug as fixed. If you have further
information, don't hesitate to reopen it.
Thanks !

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Simone Bordet (biorn_steedom)
Date: 2004-08-26 16:50

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=128193

What do you mean with "fully J2EE compliant" ? Are you
running the JMX TCK against MX4J ?
If so, I hope Sun will fix the TCK bugs or at least ignore
the failures and grant compliance.
As for the MX4J bugs, I'm going to fix them, they're trivial
changes.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=450647&aid=1016117&group_id=47745


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click