Hi Brian

I thought about:
,artifact id:
and finally version:
My preferences are - org.jboss as group id and jboss-jmx-console as artifact id. What do you think, is it ok?

Best regards
Sebastian



2014-06-03 22:33 GMT+02:00 Brian Stansberry <brian.stansberry@redhat.com>:
Hi Sebastian,


On 6/1/14, 1:21 PM, Sebastian Łaskawiec wrote:
Hi Brian

Thanks for clarification and sorry for late response.

I created Feature Request to add expose MBean server through HTTP
management interface: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-3426


Thanks.


It would be great to have MBean server exposed via Wildfly HTTP
Management interface, but I know several teams which would like to have
such functionality in JBoss AS 7. This is why I started looking at
Darran's port to JMX console
(https://github.com/dandreadis/wildfly/commits/jmx-console). I rebased
it, detached from Wildfly parent and pushed to my branch
(https://github.com/altanis/wildfly/commits/jmx-console-ported). The
same WAR file seems to work correctly on JBoss AS 7 as well as Wildfly.

In my opinion it would be great to have this console available publicly.
Is it possible to make the WAR file available through JBoss Nexus
(perhaps thirdparty-releases repository)? If it is, I'd squash all
commits and push only jmx-console code into new github repository (to
make it separate from Wildfly).


What maven Group were you wanting to use? That jmx-console-ported branch has org.wildfly in the pom.

Best regards
Sebastian



2014-05-22 3:23 GMT+02:00 Brian Stansberry <brian.stansberry@redhat.com
<mailto:brian.stansberry@redhat.com>>:


    I agree that if we exposed the mbean server over HTTP that it should be
    via a context on our HTTP management interface. Either that or expose
    mbeans as part of our standard management resource tree. That would make
    integration in the web console much more practical.

    I don't see us ever bringing back the AS5-style jmx-console.war that
    runs on port 8080 as part of the WildFly distribution. That would
    introduce a requirement for EE into our management infrastructure, and
    we won't do that. Management is part of WildFly core, and WildFly core
    does not require EE. If the Servlet-based jmx-console.war code linked
    from WFLY-1197 gets further developed, I see it as a community effort
    for people who want to install that on their own, not as something we'd
    distribute as part of WildFly itself.

    On 5/21/14, 7:37 AM, Sebastian Łaskawiec wrote:
     > Hi
     >
     > One of our projects is based on JBoss 5.1 and we are considering
     > migrating it to Wildfly. One of our problems is Web based JMX
    Console...
     > We have pretty complicated production environment and Web based JMX
     > console with basic Auth delegated to LDAP is the simplest
    solution for us.
     >
     > I noticed that there was a ticket opened for porting legacy JMX
    Console:
     > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-1197.
     > However I think it would be much better idea to to have this
     > functionality in Web Administraction console. In my opinion it
    would be
     > great to have it under "Runtime" in "Status" submenu.
     >
     > What do you think about this idea?
     >
     > Best Regards
     > --
     > Sebastian Łaskawiec
     >
     >
     > _______________________________________________
     > wildfly-dev mailing list
     > wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org>

     > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
     >


    --
    Brian Stansberry
    Senior Principal Software Engineer
    JBoss by Red Hat
    _______________________________________________
    wildfly-dev mailing list
    wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org>

    https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev




--
Sebastian Łaskawiec


--
Brian Stansberry
Senior Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat



--
Sebastian Łaskawiec