Re: Remote Access using JSR 160
Amy Roh wrote: Would it be possible to wait until tomorrow to start doing that (ie, after I tag 5.0.19) ? Sure, it can wait. I wasn't planning on doing it right away. I need to see whether we can accomplish this first - it'll be very nice to do so. BTW, another problem: on StandardContext and StandardWrapper, the objectName attribute returns an ObjectName, rather than a String. Really? This was fixed a while ago. ContainerBase.getObjectName() returns a String. Yes, it says it returns a String, but if you actually get the attribute, you get an ObjectName (I did modify the JMX proxy servlet to make sure of that). Sneaky :) Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Remote Access using JSR 160
Are you using modeler 1.1? You need to have the latest modeler change for the fix - org.apache.commons.modeler.BaseModelMBean 1.25. The fix went in after 1.1 release. How about that for sneaky ;-) All should be good if you have the latest BaseModelMBean. :-) Amy Yes, it says it returns a String, but if you actually get the attribute, you get an ObjectName (I did modify the JMX proxy servlet to make sure of that). Sneaky :) Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Remote Access using JSR 160
Amy Roh wrote: Are you using modeler 1.1? You need to have the latest modeler change for the fix - org.apache.commons.modeler.BaseModelMBean 1.25. The fix went in after 1.1 release. How about that for sneaky ;-) All should be good if you have the latest BaseModelMBean. :-) The diff seems to validate this. I'll test it next week. Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remote Access using JSR 160
Not all Tomcat 5 MBeans are serializable and I think we should make all our exposed MBeans serializable if we want to support remote access to MBeanServer using JSR 160. We'll need to modify Tomcat MBeans to only have serializable attributes and return types. Comments? Thanks, Amy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Remote Access using JSR 160
Howdy, Not all Tomcat 5 MBeans are serializable and I think we should make all our exposed MBeans serializable if we want to support remote access to MBeanServer using JSR 160. We'll need to modify Tomcat MBeans to only have serializable attributes and return types. Comments? +1, willing to help. Yoav Shapira This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Remote Access using JSR 160
Amy Roh wrote: Not all Tomcat 5 MBeans are serializable and I think we should make all our exposed MBeans serializable if we want to support remote access to MBeanServer using JSR 160. We'll need to modify Tomcat MBeans to only have serializable attributes and return types. Comments? That's not completely doable for now, I think (ex: the StandardContext returns itself for some attributes, and it's needed in some places). Would it be possible to wait until tomorrow to start doing that (ie, after I tag 5.0.19) ? BTW, another problem: on StandardContext and StandardWrapper, the objectName attribute returns an ObjectName, rather than a String. Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Remote Access using JSR 160
-1 for doing it now, +0 to do it after tag and after next stable release. Filip - Original Message - From: Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:03 PM Subject: Re: Remote Access using JSR 160 Amy Roh wrote: Not all Tomcat 5 MBeans are serializable and I think we should make all our exposed MBeans serializable if we want to support remote access to MBeanServer using JSR 160. We'll need to modify Tomcat MBeans to only have serializable attributes and return types. Comments? That's not completely doable for now, I think (ex: the StandardContext returns itself for some attributes, and it's needed in some places). Would it be possible to wait until tomorrow to start doing that (ie, after I tag 5.0.19) ? BTW, another problem: on StandardContext and StandardWrapper, the objectName attribute returns an ObjectName, rather than a String. Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Remote Access using JSR 160
Would it be possible to wait until tomorrow to start doing that (ie, after I tag 5.0.19) ? Sure, it can wait. I wasn't planning on doing it right away. I need to see whether we can accomplish this first - it'll be very nice to do so. BTW, another problem: on StandardContext and StandardWrapper, the objectName attribute returns an ObjectName, rather than a String. Really? This was fixed a while ago. ContainerBase.getObjectName() returns a String. Thanks, Amy Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Remote Access using JSR 160
I suggest using the java.lang.reflect.Proxy object as remote, then you can make almost any object with an interface remote :) Filip - Original Message - From: Amy Roh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: Re: Remote Access using JSR 160 Would it be possible to wait until tomorrow to start doing that (ie, after I tag 5.0.19) ? Sure, it can wait. I wasn't planning on doing it right away. I need to see whether we can accomplish this first - it'll be very nice to do so. BTW, another problem: on StandardContext and StandardWrapper, the objectName attribute returns an ObjectName, rather than a String. Really? This was fixed a while ago. ContainerBase.getObjectName() returns a String. Thanks, Amy Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
