geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: [Q:] JMX implementation, adaptors
Date Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:54:04 GMT
On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 10:02 AM, gianny DAMOUR wrote:

> Dain Sundstrom said:
>>>> 2) Are we using JRMP over RMI for remote access to the MBeans 
>>>> (i.e., a
>>>> JRMP over RMI adaptor for JMX)?
>>> Just right now, the JRMP adaptor of MX4J is leverage in order to be 
>>> able to use MC4J. The adaptor is mounted during the boot of 
>>> Geronimo. You can have a look to the boot-service.xml.
>> For now yes, but the new approach is the remoting framework.
> Thanks for this precision.
> It is in my understanding that the remoting framework exposes, by now, 
> the MBeanServer via the "async" transport using either or 
> java.nio. It is also in my understanding that this framework allows to 
> add "easily" new transport protocols.
> However, when I browsed the code, I thought that it was "just a 
> show-case" of this framework and a mean to share with others how to 
> leverage it. I thought that it was a show-case because MX4J provides a 
> RMI adaptor.
> I understand that protocol adaptors and connectors are not covered by 
> the JMX specifications and hence that to use the out-of-the-box RMI 
> adaptor provided by MX4J was binding the implementation to MX4J.

I believe that JSR 160 addresses remote connections to an MBeanServer, 
but it is protocol independent.

> Hence this question: can we use provider specific features or is it 
> forbidden in order to ensure the "portability"?

The only protocols required by J2EE are IIOP and SOAP.  Beyond that we 
can use any other protocol we want.  I expect the normal protocols to 
be a custom low overhead protocol and some sort of rmi/http.


View raw message