Mailing-List: contact server-user-help@james.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "James Users List" <server-user@james.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of timprepscius@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.46 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Subject: Re: overhead of JmxServerProbe?
From: Timothy Prepscius <timprepscius@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FE08B60.5070605@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:48:54 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A7DF0029-29F7-4F4F-866F-AB7F8841CB9E@gmail.com>
References: <3F2FCA8B-F690-49A8-96F9-B2CAB758582C@gmail.com>
 <4FE08B60.5070605@apache.org>
To: "James Users List" <server-user@james.apache.org>

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?=20=

(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,
>=20
> No idea on the overhead, the connect method instanciates a few objects =
connecting to the remote server.
>=20
> If your workload is not too high, it should be all right, but don't do =
it via direct database access (never ever!).
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Thx,
> Eric
>=20
> On 06/19/2012 02:58 PM, Timothy Prepscius wrote:
>> I am wondering whether anyone knows the overhead associated with the =
JmxServerProbe?
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>>=20
>> So, if I use JMX, I will need to change the code to instantiate the =
JMX interface with each user creation.
>>=20
>>=20
>> ---
>>=20
>> Is this wise?  What sort of overhead am I inducing by creating this =
JMX interface?
>>=20
>> I'm wondering if I should instead just write directly to the =
james.JAMES_USER table.
>>=20
>> --
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>>=20
>> -tim
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>=20
>=20
> --=20
> eric | http://about.echarles.net | @echarles
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>=20


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