Well we have multiple container invokers listening on 4444 at the
same time, right? One per EJB, it looks like. So why is it OK to have
several within one jBoss but not several across several jBoss-es?
Aaron
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Scherr Gerolf wrote:
> > 4444 if I remember correctly. Either that or anonymous, i.e. whatever.
> > Having an anonymous port is good since it allows several jBoss instances
> > to
> > live on the same server, which is useful for clustering. Having an
> > anonymous
> > port is bad since it makes it harder to set up firewalls to let through
> > jBoss traffic (will this be common?). This should probably be configurable
> > further down the road.
> >
> I mentioned this problem already in
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03873.html
> but I have got no response in that issue
>
> since the 4444 is hardcoded, it is not possible to have two
> instances of jboss running on the same machine (without applying my
> change)...
>
> gerolf.
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
