james-server-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Charles <e...@apache.org>
Subject Re: overhead of JmxServerProbe?
Date Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:08:19 GMT
Hi Tim,

An indication of the time needed to get the timeout will be useful.

We already have findbugs defines in the (project) pom, so if you invoke 
'mvn findbugs:check' you will get a findbugs.xml in the target folder. 
If you want something more readable, you can invoke 'mvn site 
-Psite-reports' (look in site/findbugs.html).

Thx, Eric

On 06/19/2012 06:48 PM, Timothy Prepscius wrote:
> K, I'll post a stack trace tomorrow.  (need to wait for the connection to die)
>
>
> [ optional ]
>
> On a lesser note, do you guys do code coverage/static analysis of james?
>
> Do you have a favorite tool/plugin that works well with maven and james?
> (I'm not versed in the various maven java coverage/analysis tools)
>
> I'll spend some time looking tonight, but if there is an obvious choice.. etc etc etc..
>
> [ /optional ]
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> -tim
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> No idea on the overhead, the connect method instanciates a few objects connecting
to the remote server.
>>
>> If your workload is not too high, it should be all right, but don't do it via direct
database access (never ever!).
>>
>> It would be good that you post the exception stacktrace in a JIRA so we can think
to enhance the client with a JMX Connection pool (or something like that) or configure the
connection with longer timeouts.
>>
>> Thx,
>> Eric
>>
>> On 06/19/2012 02:58 PM, Timothy Prepscius wrote:
>>> I am wondering whether anyone knows the overhead associated with the JmxServerProbe?
>>>
>>> So, currently, I instantiate a JMX interface and keep it around indefinitely
in order to create users.
>>> However, it eventually times out and fails to reconnect.
>>> Thereafter, user creation fails.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, if I use JMX, I will need to change the code to instantiate the JMX interface
with each user creation.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Is this wise?  What sort of overhead am I inducing by creating this JMX interface?
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if I should instead just write directly to the james.JAMES_USER
table.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -tim
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> --
>> eric | http://about.echarles.net | @echarles
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>

-- 
eric | http://about.echarles.net | @echarles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org


Mime
View raw message