Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8297794: Deprecate JMX Management Applets for Removal [v4]

2022-12-02 Thread Sean Mullan
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:37:38 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> Deprecate the Java Management Extension (JMX) Management Applet (m-let) >> feature for removal. >> >> This deprecation will have no impact on users of other JMX features, the >> JDK's built-in instrumentation, or any of the observability

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8296244: Alternate implementation of user-based authorization Subject APIs that doesn’t depend on Security Manager APIs [v3]

2024-03-04 Thread Sean Mullan
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:58:28 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based >> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs. >> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the >> current subject d

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8296244: Alternate implementation of user-based authorization Subject APIs that doesn’t depend on Security Manager APIs [v3]

2024-03-04 Thread Sean Mullan
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:58:28 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based >> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs. >> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the >> current subject d

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8296244: Alternate implementation of user-based authorization Subject APIs that doesn’t depend on Security Manager APIs [v3]

2024-03-04 Thread Sean Mullan
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:58:28 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based >> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs. >> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the >> current subject d

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8296244: Alternate implementation of user-based authorization Subject APIs that doesn’t depend on Security Manager APIs [v3]

2024-03-04 Thread Sean Mullan
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:58:28 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based >> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs. >> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the >> current subject d

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8296244: Alternate implementation of user-based authorization Subject APIs that doesn’t depend on Security Manager APIs [v3]

2024-03-04 Thread Sean Mullan
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:51:38 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> src/java.management/share/classes/com/sun/jmx/remote/security/MBeanServerFileAccessController.java >> line 309: >> >>> 307: final Subject s; >>> 308: if (!SharedSecrets.getJavaLangAccess().allowSecurityManager()) >>> { >>>

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8326666: Remove the Java Management Extension (JMX) Subject Delegation feature [v5]

2024-03-07 Thread Sean Mullan
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 11:46:16 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> The deprecated Subject Delegation feature in JMX will be removed. >> >> This was marked in JDK 21 as deprecated for removal (JDK-8298966). > > Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the las

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8326666: Remove the Java Management Extension (JMX) Subject Delegation feature [v5]

2024-03-07 Thread Sean Mullan
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 11:46:16 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> The deprecated Subject Delegation feature in JMX will be removed. >> >> This was marked in JDK 21 as deprecated for removal (JDK-8298966). > > Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the las

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8326666: Remove the Java Management Extension (JMX) Subject Delegation feature [v5]

2024-03-07 Thread Sean Mullan
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 11:46:16 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> The deprecated Subject Delegation feature in JMX will be removed. >> >> This was marked in JDK 21 as deprecated for removal (JDK-8298966). > > Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the las

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8326666: Remove the Java Management Extension (JMX) Subject Delegation feature [v5]

2024-03-11 Thread Sean Mullan
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:19:08 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: > > Is there any value in keeping `SubjectDelegationPermission` after this > > change? If so, I would mark that API deprecated for removal, so that it can > > be removed in the next release or two. > > No issue with deprecation. I guess it

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8296244: Alternate implementation of user-based authorization Subject APIs that doesn’t depend on Security Manager APIs [v6]

2024-03-12 Thread Sean Mullan
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:56:58 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based >> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs. >> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the >> current subject di

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8296244: Alternate implementation of user-based authorization Subject APIs that doesn’t depend on Security Manager APIs [v6]

2024-03-13 Thread Sean Mullan
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:56:58 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based >> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs. >> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the >> current subject di

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8296244: Alternate implementation of user-based authorization Subject APIs that doesn’t depend on Security Manager APIs [v8]

2024-03-20 Thread Sean Mullan
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:45:50 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based >> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs. >> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the >> current subject d

Re: jmx-dev RFR: JDK-8327474 Review use of java.io.tmpdir in jdk tests [v3]

2024-03-21 Thread Sean Mullan
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:13:46 GMT, Bill Huang wrote: >> This task addresses an essential aspect of our testing infrastructure: the >> proper handling and cleanup of temporary files and socket files created >> during test execution. The motivation behind these changes is to prevent the >> accumu

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8332303: Better JMX interoperability with older JDKs, after removing Subject Delegation [v2]

2024-05-16 Thread Sean Mullan
On Thu, 16 May 2024 11:46:30 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> Running JConsole from a previous JDK, and attaching to jdk-23 (after >> [JDK-832](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-832): Remove the Java >> Management Extension (JMX) Subject Delegation feature), the MBean tab is >> blank. >>

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v2]

2024-06-11 Thread Sean Mullan
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 16:52:26 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of >> AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. >> >> Until then, updates are needed to not require setting >> -Djava.security.manager

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v3]

2024-06-11 Thread Sean Mullan
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:51:11 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Sean comments > > src/java.management.rmi/share/classes/javax/management/remote/rmi/RMIConnectionImpl.java > line 1436:

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v6]

2024-06-12 Thread Sean Mullan
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:11:28 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of >> AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. >> >> Until then, updates are needed to not require setting >> -Djava.security.manager

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v3]

2024-06-12 Thread Sean Mullan
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:06:39 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> For the same reason you should be able to just call `Subject.current` in the >> tests. I don't think you need the `SimpleStandard.useGetSubjectACC` property >> to toggle the testing of either old or replacement APIs as long as the test >>

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v17]

2024-06-17 Thread Sean Mullan
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:59:37 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of >> AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. >> >> Until then, updates are needed to not require setting >> -Djava.security.manager

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v17]

2024-06-17 Thread Sean Mullan
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:59:37 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of >> AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. >> >> Until then, updates are needed to not require setting >> -Djava.security.manager

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v16]

2024-06-17 Thread Sean Mullan
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:53:19 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> src/java.management.rmi/share/classes/javax/management/remote/rmi/RMIConnectionImpl.java >> line 1314: >> >>> 1312: return AccessController.doPrivileged(action, acc); >>> 1313: } >>> 1314: }