[wildfly-dev] JMX RMI - keeps coming back

[Jaikiran Pai]

I don't see why that path shouldn't be made visible to the module 
classloader. So that's the only thing that's preventing a "clean fix" 
for this issue?

-Jaikiran
On Tuesday 04 June 2013 04:54 PM, Bartosz Baranowski wrote:
> There was a bug which has been fixed looong ago. The com/sun/jndi/url/rmi path is not part of default export
> in sun module by choice, atleast I've been told that(not sure by who, it has been more than a year).
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jaikiran Pai" <jpai at redhat.com>
>> To: "Bartosz Baranowski" <bbaranow at redhat.com>
>> Cc: wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org, "John Sanda" <jsanda at redhat.com>, "Chris Sams" <csams at redhat.com>, "Carlo de Wolf"
>> <cdewolf at redhat.com>, "Stuart Douglas" <sdouglas at redhat.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:56:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: JMX RMI - keeps coming back
>>
>> I don't know about a couple of the 3 bugzilla's linked below. But
>> WFLY-794 looks like a bug in the AS naming implementation. It looks like
>> we don't allow to connect to JMX RMI service hosted on some MBeanServer
>> which exposes such a service. I think that should be fixed and I thought
>> we had fixed that just recently. Didn't we? And like Stuart states, it's
>> just a matter of having the com/sun/jndi/url/rmi path visible to the module.
>>
>> -Jaikiran
>> On Tuesday 04 June 2013 02:14 PM, Bartosz Baranowski wrote:
>>> Hi guys.
>>>
>>> It seems that JMX-RMI does not die easly.
>>>
>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-794
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958166
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951993
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962890
>>>
>>> I've been told that AS7/8 will not export com.sun/support JMX-RMI urls.
>>> I understand thats not AS who should probably provide naming URL hacks,
>>> since naming supports runtime url context factory lookup.
>>>
>>> However this issue seems to come back every 2-3 months or so, this is a bit
>>> frustrating.
>>> Can we get a closure on this?
>>>
>>