tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amy Roh <>
Subject TC5 JMX domain engine issue
Date Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:36:52 GMT
Changing the subject and ccing the spec lead for more insights.

Costin Manolache wrote:
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
>>Personally, here's what I would like:
>>- 1 engine <-> 1 domain <-> 1 service
> That provides the cleanest solution for tomcat, and I don't think it hurts 
> anything. We can still have as many engines as we want in the VM.

The problem is that this doesn't follow jsr77.  You should be able to 
have more than one server(engine) under one domain (see jsr77.3.2).  If 
we treat engine's name as domain and not allow multiple engines under 
one domain we're skipping one level (j2eeserver) and problems occur.

Hans, maybe you can comment on this better?

>>- An option to configure in which domain the JSR 77 beans go (the other
>>parts of the appserver must have their stuff in the same domain I assume)
> I'm leaning toward this option as well. I agree with Amy, registering them
> in both tomcat and j2ee domain is hacky. 

Yeah, I don't think this is a good elegant long term solution.  We don't 
want to have two mbeans registered in two different domains.  When a 
user browses through WebModule & Servlet jsr77 mbeans, you'll see two 
registered in j2eedomain and tomcat each.  Hacky.

> And it makes a lot of sense to do that - tomcat servlet engine(s) provide
> a certain service ( i.e. implement the servlet spec ), but the webapps
> should be in the domain that manages them.
> It is possible to have tomcat manage the webapps ( standalone case ), but if 
> we are in a j2ee server, the server handles deployment and lifecycle. Tomcat 
> only listens what the j2ee server wants ( i.e. add/remove events, etc ) and 
> forwards the requests. 
> I would even go one step further and have all webapps/servlets in a separate
> domain from tomcat internal components - even in standalone case. This way 
> we could restart the container without having to restart the webapps ( does
> it makes sense ? Don't know :-)
>>- A way to set J2EEApplication
>>- A way to set J2EEServer
> I think we already have that ( setter methods if you construct the Context
> directly, or you just include them in the name when you create it via JMX).

I confirm we do have this.

>>I do not like the virtual-virtual-virtual hosting Catalina provides (or
>>rather provided). It adds complexity and adds problems for little
>>benefit. With the ability to have services, we already have
>>virtual-vurtual hosting. I'd like to remove the extra layer, and the
>>timing is right.
> Multiple Engines are not a bad thing, quite the contrary. But 
> they should be used in a clean way. JMX domains are a good way to
> organize the info.

I agree we should decide to use a clean way that follows the spec to 
achieve this goal.


> Costin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message