Hi
Since each instance will get its own port the name is pointless IMO until
all instances are shown in the same jmx tree but here the name would be a
jmx properties so +1 to not have the name in the url (probably with a
comment in the cfg to get back current behavior for users relying on it).
Le mer. 20 nov. 2019 à 07:52, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr.grzy...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Hello
>
> IMO, alias would be better. But how about child containers?
> (instance:create)?
>
> regards
> Grzegorz Grzybek
>
> śr., 20 lis 2019 o 07:50 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I'm working on adding JMXMP connector on Karaf JMX layer (in addition of
> > the RMI connector we already have).
> >
> > I was thinking about the default JMX context we are using.
> >
> > Right now, our context contains the Karaf instance name. For users, it
> > means they have to use service URL like
> > service:jmx:rmi:///jndi/rmi://localhost:1099/karaf-foo
> >
> > It's not very convenient/predictable: for instance, in jconsole, the
> > users have to use the full service URL.
> > Of course, they can change the URL to use /jmxrmi in
> > etc/org.apache.karaf.management.cfg but it's not the default.
> >
> > I propose to either:
> > 1. Use /jmxrmi context instead of /karaf-${karaf.name}
> > 2. Keep the default /karaf-${karaf.name} context and add an "alias" on
> > /jmxrmi
> >
> > Thoughts ?
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> > --
> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > jbono...@apache.org
> > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >
>
