Alan Cabrera wrote:
Simon,
Dave and I are in the process of placing a layered pluggable protocol stack underneath Hiram's code. It allows for a lot of nifty features such as Kerberos via SASL or GSSAPI; we also want to put xinetd functionality in. If I read Jeremy's email correctly, it is this that he is referring to.
For remote JMX, MX4J has a perfectly good implementation and I think that we should use it as is. Are people thinking about using the Geronimo network stack to support remote JMX? It is not clear to me what the advantages are of doing this.
Do I understand this thread correctly?
Yep :) DB and I were not sure how it all plugged together.
The advantages I was thinking of were security etc. around the JMX invocation. If 160 handles all of this for us, then cool; I was just concerned that JMX over RMI/JRMP or whatever integrated with the rest of security etc. so users don't end up having to define separate credentials.
Seems to me that if we layer 160 on top of your stack, clients get the standard API and we get low-level integration - does that make sense?
-- Jeremy
