8358701: Remove misleading javax.management.remote API doc wording about JMX spec, and historic link to JMXMP

[kevinjwalls]

Doc-only cleanup, not part of the API/spec.

Remove link to the very old reference implementation of JMXMP in the Javadoc. This may misleadingly imply it is a supported part of the JDK.

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change requires CSR request JDK-8358759 to be approved
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issues

• JDK-8358701: Remove misleading javax.management.remote API doc wording about JMX spec, and historic link to JMXMP (Enhancement - P3)
• JDK-8358759: Remove misleading javax.management.remote API doc wording about JMX spec, and historic link to JMXMP (CSR)

Reviewers

• Alan Bateman (@AlanBateman - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25670/head:pull/25670
$ git checkout pull/25670

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/25670
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25670/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 25670

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 25670

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25670.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back kevinw! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated.
See the Progress checklist in the description for automated requirements.

[openjdk]

@kevinjwalls The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• serviceability

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[kevinjwalls]

Existing docs:
https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/24/docs/api/java.management/javax/management/remote/package-summary.html#

New:

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 02: Full - Incremental (e3b46cc6)
• 01: Full - Incremental (25c90c77)
• 00: Full (26ffc32e)

[AlanBateman]

/csr

[openjdk]

@AlanBateman has indicated that a compatibility and specification (CSR) request is needed for this pull request.

@kevinjwalls please create a CSR request for issue JDK-8358701 with the correct fix version. This pull request cannot be integrated until the CSR request is approved.

[dfuch]

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?

[AlanBateman]

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.

[dfuch]

OK - let's drop the historical note then.

[kevinjwalls]

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

Yes that's fine. As is "User-defined connector protocols..." -> "Other connector protocols..."

[AlanBateman]

As is "User-defined connector protocols..." -> "Other connector protocols..."

I think that would be okay.

[kevinjwalls]

Also removing:
" and, optionally, the Generic Connector (not part of this bundle, see note below)."

[dfuch]

LGTM

[kevinjwalls]

While updating, I now see this as problematic:
"The specification of this functionality is completed by Part III of the JMX Specification, version 1.4"
..as it implies these docs are extended by the historical jmx remote spec.

Updating:

[AlanBateman]

Good

[kevinjwalls]

Thanks Daniel and Alan - I have created the CSR.

[sspitsyn]

Nit: Before, this line was ended with semicolon sign : as there is the list following it.
Now: The list follows the dot .. Should the dot be replaced with a semicolon?
(It impacts the CSR if you decide to change it.)

[kevinjwalls]

Thanks Serguei. The colon made sense before, the text was clearly introducing a list of facts.
With the change, I think it looks good with or without. Happy to leave as is, or update if there is any objection.