river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sim IJskes - QCG <...@qcg.nl>
Subject Re: Service Specifics
Date Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:34:39 GMT
I don't have made up my mind on what kind of data to supply over jmx, 
but information like the number of active ObjectEndpoints or Endpoints 
or any other data that might help to diagnose performance or other 
transient problems during production would have my blessing.

I'm not specifically talking about jsr-160.

JMX has helped me in the past on several occasions, and when i talk to 
system administrators who even are not allowed access to JMX data 
supplied by just the VM alone, i feel sorry for them.

Its about turning the black box into a lighter color.

But confessing my love for JMX is probably not answering the original 
question you asked.

Gr. Sim

On 12-11-10 13:36, Tom Hobbs wrote:
> I'm happy to implement using JMX rather than an Admin implementation.
> Thanks for the suggestion (I often forget that JMX exists...)
>
> I'm guessing then that the idea of supplying this kind of data is not
> objectionable to you?
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Sim IJskes - QCG<sim@qcg.nl>  wrote:
>> On 12-11-10 13:23, Dennis Reedy wrote:
>>>
>>> Would using the the JSR 160 approach where a service adds
>>> net.jini.look.entry.jmx.* attributes to its collection of attributes
>>> it maintains with it's service registration also work? That way a JMX
>>> connection can be established to the service's JVM, allowing jconsole
>>> or visualvm to display (even profile) JVM details?
>>
>> JMX would be nice.
>>
>> Gr. Sim
>>
>> --
>> QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
>> Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
>>


-- 
QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397

Mime
View raw message