On 03/25/2010 02:05 PM, Adrian Brock wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 13:35 -0500, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> The latter is roughly
> what we do today with RMIAdaptor (sic), so it seems the least invasive to
> me since one would think that things like Twiddle would then only have to
> change the interface of what they pull out of JNDI.
Not really because RMIAdaptor extends
the later is what people should be using rather a jboss api.
Yeah, I'm just saying we ought to use the JMX connector - that's why it exists.
P.S. I don't really understand this change.
It breaks a number of "features".
By using the JMX connector in the JDK you loose the ability to do
remote JMX invocations that are involved in user transactions.
How is this a bad thing? That there's even an expectation that
transactions will "work" over JMX seems crazy to me. It's ok to
discontinue features which don't make sense.
You're also missing a way to integrate the security with the
You can't add load balancing/failover which the old
jmx-invoker could do if you configured it.
This _is_ just management we're talking about; management is a per-system
kind of thing. What is the use case for clustering/load-balancing? This
is a non-requirement as far as I can see.
Finally, you loose the serialization workarounds, e.g.
<!-- Interceptor that deals with non-serializable results -->
and the swapping of the MBeanServer to an MBeanServerConnection
when passing MBeanProxys over the network.
The expectation that non-serializable results will work is the wrong one,
not the lack of support for it. What's the use case?
Also, it means you pretty much have to use RMI (that's
all that is implemented in the JDK) which a lot
of people don't want to do, its painful through a proxy.
Nah, for jconsole you can add a plugin (via -plungpath), and in other
applications you can use the "jmx.remote.protocol.provider.pkgs" system
property if you want to use other transports. I'd like to add a remoting
transport, if I ever get time.
While the old jmx-invoker can be swapped out to use the
There was a customer on the support list asking about that
only last week.
Getting HTTP working over Remoting 3 is a prereq for AS6.0.0.GA anyway, so
I wouldn't be too bothered if we had to add a JSR-160 connector to that
list. It doesn't really represent much work from what I can see.
- DML ☍