"ron.sigal(a)jboss.com" wrote : | 1. Currently, an instance of org.jboss.remoting.network.NetworkRegistry is created, but I don't think we need it. | | a. NetworkRegistry is used by an instance of a subclass of org.jboss.remoting.detection.AbstractDetector to store information about known instances of org.jboss.remoting.transport.Connector. But the JNDIDetector in remoting-service.xml is commented out by default. | | b. It looks like the only part of the Application Server that uses the Remoting detection service is Tom's jmx-remoting package, which, I believe, is used only in the presence of jdk 1.4, which should never apply to AS 5. | | I checked with Tom, and his memory was a little fuzzy but he thought I was right. Does anyone remember how jboss-service.xml happened to have a NetworkRegistry and no JNDIDetector? | This has been there since AS5 was using jdk1.4, so I'm sure its just for the jmx remoting integration work. "ron.sigal(a)jboss.com" wrote : | 2. If I understand correctly, setting "registerDirectly" to "false" in org.jboss.aop.microcontainer.aspects.jmx.JMX would be more semantically consistent with MBeans in older versions of AS. Do we have a policy about that for beans derived from existing MBeans? | Looking at the JMXIntroduction, its not a question of different semantics, its a question of whether not the underlying bean is a JMX compatible bean. If it is, it can be registered directly, otherwise its wrapped in a StandardMBean with the JMX annotation specified interface. POJOs with *MBean interfaces can be registered directly, simple POJOs that don't match the default jmx interface conventions cannot. "ron.sigal(a)jboss.com" wrote : | 3. As MBeans are transformed into POJOs, should the names in binding.xml be updated to refer to the POJO names? Does it matter? | Generally I would say yes, but if there are dependencies on the mbean name it should be exposed either using the JMX annotation, or using a alias element in the bean deployment. 4. I've named the "jboss.remoting:service=Connector,transport=socket" Connector "UnifiedInvokerConnector", which isn't strictly appropriate, now that it has the JSR88 handler as well. Any suggestions for a better name? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4186818#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...