On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 10:02 AM, gianny DAMOUR wrote:
Dain Sundstrom said:2) Are we using JRMP over RMI for remote access to the MBeans (i.e., aJust 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.
JRMP over RMI adaptor for JMX)?
For now yes, but the new approach is the remoting framework.Thanks for this precision.
It is in my understanding that the remoting framework exposes, by now, the MBeanServer via the "async" transport using either java.io or java.nio. It is also in my understanding that this framework allows to add "easily" new transport protocols.
However, when I browsed the code, I thought that it was "just a show-case" of this framework and a mean to share with others how to leverage it. I thought that it was a show-case because MX4J provides a RMI adaptor.
I understand that protocol adaptors and connectors are not covered by the JMX specifications and hence that to use the out-of-the-box RMI adaptor provided by MX4J was binding the implementation to MX4J.
I believe that JSR 160 addresses remote connections to an MBeanServer, but it is protocol independent.
Hence this question: can we use provider specific features or is it forbidden in order to ensure the "portability"?
The only protocols required by J2EE are IIOP and SOAP. Beyond that we can use any other protocol we want. I expect the normal protocols to be a custom low overhead protocol and some sort of rmi/http.
-dain
