Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:14:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [Q:] JMX implementation, adaptors
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@coredevelopers.net>
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <Sea1-F109IPuhzlQaZ300023f14@hotmail.com>
Message-Id: <2F196A76-E919-11D7-B8F8-000393DB559A@coredevelopers.net>

On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 12:06 AM, gianny DAMOUR wrote:

>> 1) Are we using the mx4j implementation of JMX?
> Yes.
>
>> 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.

>> 3) Are we moving to IIOP over RMI, and if we do, are we still keeping
>> JRMP over RMI?
> AFAIK, a compliant application server MUST support RMI over IIOP. 
> Nevertheless, I am not sure if this requirement is to be applied to 
> JMX adaptors.

I don't think IIOP will be used for anything other then passing the TCK.

-dain

/*************************
  * Dain Sundstrom
  * Partner
  * Core Developers Network
  *************************/