Hi, Agree with Romain, karaf name instance is not necessary because each instance have its own port.
regards, François [email protected] Le 20/11/2019 à 08:00, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>>
