because I am getting : [Auto deploy] java.rmi.ServerException: Could not bind either home or invoker; nested exception is: [Auto deploy] java.rmi.server.ExportException: Port already in use: 4444; nested exception is: [Auto deploy] java.net.BindException: Address in use: JVM_Bind [Auto deploy] at org.jboss.ejb.ContainerFactory.deploy(ContainerFactory.java:665) when I try to start a second jboss on the same machine... it seems that it is not possible to share a port between 2 jvm's. - and hardcoded numerical constants are not good... gerolf. > -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Aaron Mulder [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Gesendet am: Freitag, 20. Oktober 2000 14:50 > An: jBoss > Betreff: Re: AW: [jBoss-User] jBoss, firewalls & SSL/TLS > > 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]
