Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Harsha Wardhana B]

Hi Kirk,Erik,

The current JEP addresses the first use-case. Second use case can be 
realized by adding a JMXConnector that operates over REST APIs provided 
by the current JEP. But that is outside the scope of this JEP.


-Harsha


On Tuesday 12 September 2017 04:27 PM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:


On Sep 12, 2017, at 12:44 PM, Erik Gahlin > wrote:


I guess there are two use cases:

1) Simple interoperability with other languages.
2) A drop in replacement for RMI

Can a JMX connector be written that support both use cases? I don't 
know, but if not it could be that we need both a connector and an 
adapter.


I think if you were to extend JMXConnector to wrap the REST API you 
might be able to expose both. But I’m not sure it would be a great 
solution. I think a second JEP would be a better option.


— Kirk



Erik


Hi Kirk,

I guess the term 'connector' here is loosely applied. When I say 
connector, I mean the connector that provides implementation of the 
package below,


https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/javax/management/remote/package-summary.html

RMIConnector is one implementation of above connector.


On Tuesday 12 September 2017 12:56 PM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:

Hi Harsha,

From Chapter 5 of the JMX documentation. "Many different 
implementations of connectors are possible. In particular, there 
are many possibilities for the protocol used to communicate over a 
connection between client and server.”


It goes on in the Generic Connector section under "User-Defined 
Protocols” to say; "While the RMI connector must be present in 
every implementation of the JMX Remote API, you can also implement 
a connector based on a protocol that is not defined in the JMX 
Remote API standard. A typical example of this is a connector based 
on a protocol that uses HTTP/S. Other protocols are also possible. 
The JMX specification describes how to implement a connector based 
on a user-defined protocol.”


Unless I’m missing something, this all suggests that there is 
nothing inherently wrong is using REST behind a JMXConnector.
I hope above should clarify what I refer to when I say JMXConnector. 
In that sense, REST APIs alone cannot work as connector. In fact, it 
stands parallel to connector, as in it directly wraps the 
MBeanServer and does not wrap any JMXConnector. The JEP has detailed 
information about where the REST adapter sits in the JMX architecture.


Are you suggesting that we implement a JMXConnector that works over 
REST?


As written this JEP pretty much looks like Jolokia. Jolokia is a 
great project and as such I fail to see the benefits of simply 
duplicating it. I’d also argue that the usefulness of that project 
has been some what muted because it is not a drop in replacement 
for the standard RMI connector meaning that one has to modify an 
entire tool chain just to make use of it. However, creating a REST 
based JMXConnector would be immediately useful.
As an aside, Jus last week I started on a JMXConnector that uses a 
shared memory segment for communications. Of course this 
implementation would only be available for local communications but 
it offers some advantages over using a socket based protocol, even 
if that comms is over local loopback.


Kind regards,
Kirk Pepperdine


Thanks
Harsha




On Sep 12, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Harsha Wardhana B 
 wrote:


Hi Kirk,

REST APIs work as an adapter and cannot work as a connector. To 
quote from the JEP,



The REST adapter is a part of the Distributed services level. 
Connectors mirror the interfaces of agent level services to 
remote clients, whereas adapters transform agent level services 
to different protocol. The proposed functionality will transform 
Agent level services to REST APIs, hence the name "REST adapter".
A connector *must* adhere to the JMX remoting spec. REST APIs 
cannot adhere to that because they expose APIs via HTTP and not 
Java. Hence it is called an Adapter and not a connector. It can 
never work as a 'drop-in' replacement for JMX/RMI Connector. 
Existing tools using using RMIConnector will have to be modified 
to use REST APIs.


The current JEP does not allow all of the CRUD operations on 
MBeans. In the spirit of keeping the APIs language agnostic, only 
read/write is supported. It is not possible to specify 
create/delete REST APIs for JMX without incorporating language 
specific features. I would welcome discussions around including 
create/delete APIs for MBeans.


In lieu of the above, as of now REST adapter cannot exist 
independently and will have to live along-side RMIConnector.


-Harsha


On Monday 11 September 2017 09:05 PM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:

Hi Harsha,

The only reason I mentioned Jolokia is that it’s a project that 
usefulness is some what limited because it is *not* a compliment 
JMX connector and as such cannot be used as a straight drop-in 
replacement for the current RMI based connector. Is your plan 

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Kirk Pepperdine]

> On Sep 12, 2017, at 12:44 PM, Erik Gahlin  wrote:
> 
> I guess there are two use cases:
> 
> 1) Simple interoperability with other languages.
> 2) A drop in replacement for RMI
> 
> Can a JMX connector be written that support both use cases? I don't know, but 
> if not it could be that we need both a connector and an adapter.

I think if you were to extend JMXConnector to wrap the REST API you might be 
able to expose both. But I’m not sure it would be a great solution. I think a 
second JEP would be a better option.

— Kirk
 
> 
> Erik
> 
>> Hi Kirk,
>> 
>> I guess the term 'connector' here is loosely applied. When I say connector, 
>> I mean the connector that provides implementation of the package below,
>> 
>> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/javax/management/remote/package-summary.html
>>  
>> 
>> RMIConnector is one implementation of above connector. 
>> 
>> On Tuesday 12 September 2017 12:56 PM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:
>>> Hi Harsha,
>>> 
>>> From Chapter 5 of the JMX documentation. "Many different implementations of 
>>> connectors are possible. In particular, there are many possibilities for 
>>> the protocol used to communicate over a connection between client and 
>>> server.”
>>> 
>>> It goes on in the Generic Connector section under "User-Defined Protocols” 
>>> to say; "While the RMI connector must be present in every implementation of 
>>> the JMX Remote API, you can also implement a connector based on a protocol 
>>> that is not defined in the JMX Remote API standard. A typical example of 
>>> this is a connector based on a protocol that uses HTTP/S. Other protocols 
>>> are also possible. The JMX specification describes how to implement a 
>>> connector based on a user-defined protocol.”
>>> 
>>> Unless I’m missing something, this all suggests that there is nothing 
>>> inherently wrong is using REST behind a JMXConnector.
>> I hope above should clarify what I refer to when I say JMXConnector. In that 
>> sense, REST APIs alone cannot work as connector. In fact, it stands parallel 
>> to connector, as in it directly wraps the MBeanServer and does not wrap any 
>> JMXConnector. The JEP has detailed information about where the REST adapter 
>> sits in the JMX architecture. 
>> 
>> Are you suggesting that we implement a JMXConnector that works over REST?
>>> 
>>> As written this JEP pretty much looks like Jolokia. Jolokia is a great 
>>> project and as such I fail to see the benefits of simply duplicating it. 
>>> I’d also argue that the usefulness of that project has been some what muted 
>>> because it is not a drop in replacement for the standard RMI connector 
>>> meaning that one has to modify an entire tool chain just to make use of it. 
>>> However, creating a REST based JMXConnector would be immediately useful.
>>> As an aside, Jus last week I started on a JMXConnector that uses a shared 
>>> memory segment for communications. Of course this implementation would only 
>>> be available for local communications but it offers some advantages over 
>>> using a socket based protocol, even if that comms is over local loopback.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Kirk Pepperdine
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Harsha
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Sep 12, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Harsha Wardhana B < 
 harsha.wardhan...@oracle.com 
 > wrote:
 
 Hi Kirk,
 
 REST APIs work as an adapter and cannot work as a connector. To quote from 
 the JEP,
 
 
> The REST adapter is a part of the Distributed services level. Connectors 
> mirror the interfaces of agent level services to remote clients, whereas 
> adapters transform agent level services to different protocol. The 
> proposed functionality will transform Agent level services to REST APIs, 
> hence the name "REST adapter".
 A connector *must* adhere to the JMX remoting spec. REST APIs cannot 
 adhere to that because they expose APIs via HTTP and not Java. Hence it is 
 called an Adapter and not a connector. It can never work as a 'drop-in' 
 replacement for JMX/RMI Connector. Existing tools using using RMIConnector 
 will have to be modified to use REST APIs. 
 
 The current JEP does not allow all of the CRUD operations on MBeans. In 
 the spirit of keeping the APIs language agnostic, only read/write is 
 supported. It is not possible to specify create/delete REST APIs for JMX 
 without incorporating language specific features. I would welcome 
 discussions around including create/delete APIs for MBeans. 
 In lieu of the above, as of now REST adapter cannot exist independently 
 and will have to live along-side RMIConnector. 
 -Harsha
 
 On Monday 11 September 2017 09:05 PM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:
> Hi Harsha,
> 
> The only reason I mentioned Jolokia is that 

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Kirk Pepperdine]

Hi Harsha,


> On Sep 12, 2017, at 10:40 AM, Harsha Wardhana B 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Kirk,
> 
> I guess the term 'connector' here is loosely applied. When I say connector, I 
> mean the connector that provides implementation of the package below,
> 
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/javax/management/remote/package-summary.html
>  
> 
> RMIConnector is one implementation of above connector. 
> 

Yes, this is the precise definition that I’ve been referring to.
> 
> On Tuesday 12 September 2017 12:56 PM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:
>> Hi Harsha,
>> 
>> From Chapter 5 of the JMX documentation. "Many different implementations of 
>> connectors are possible. In particular, there are many possibilities for the 
>> protocol used to communicate over a connection between client and server.”
>> 
>> It goes on in the Generic Connector section under "User-Defined Protocols” 
>> to say; "While the RMI connector must be present in every implementation of 
>> the JMX Remote API, you can also implement a connector based on a protocol 
>> that is not defined in the JMX Remote API standard. A typical example of 
>> this is a connector based on a protocol that uses HTTP/S. Other protocols 
>> are also possible. The JMX specification describes how to implement a 
>> connector based on a user-defined protocol.”
>> 
>> Unless I’m missing something, this all suggests that there is nothing 
>> inherently wrong is using REST behind a JMXConnector.
> I hope above should clarify what I refer to when I say JMXConnector. In that 
> sense, REST APIs alone cannot work as connector.

Indeed it cannot because they are not part of the JMXConnector API.

Ok, I reread and see I misunderstood the use cases that you’re trying to cover 
off. It seems you’re only goal is to duplicate Jolokia whereas I’m looking at a 
different use case. The primary use case I encounter is motivated by the 
inability of various sites to use JMX simply because of the operational 
restrictions that prevent them from using RMI. This JEP will help with that use 
case. That said, adding a JMXConnector with a RESTful JMXConnector would open 
up an entire JMX tool chain to them rather than have them have to define a new 
tool chain but this is outside the scope of this JEP.

> In fact, it stands parallel to connector, as in it directly wraps the 
> MBeanServer and does not wrap any JMXConnector. The JEP has detailed 
> information about where the REST adapter sits in the JMX architecture. 
> 
> Are you suggesting that we implement a JMXConnector that works over REST?

Yes, adding a JMXConnector with a RESTful JMXConnector would open up an entire 
JMX tool chain to them rather than have them have to define a new tool chain 
but this appears to be outside the scope of this JEP.

Kind regards,
Kirk

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Erik Gahlin]

I guess there are two use cases:

1) Simple interoperability with other languages.
2) A drop in replacement for RMI

Can a JMX connector be written that support both use cases? I don't 
know, but if not it could be that we need both a connector and an adapter.


Erik


Hi Kirk,

I guess the term 'connector' here is loosely applied. When I say 
connector, I mean the connector that provides implementation of the 
package below,


https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/javax/management/remote/package-summary.html

RMIConnector is one implementation of above connector.


On Tuesday 12 September 2017 12:56 PM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:

Hi Harsha,

From Chapter 5 of the JMX documentation. "Many different 
implementations of connectors are possible. In particular, there are 
many possibilities for the protocol used to communicate over a 
connection between client and server.”


It goes on in the Generic Connector section under "User-Defined 
Protocols” to say; "While the RMI connector must be present in every 
implementation of the JMX Remote API, you can also implement a 
connector based on a protocol that is not defined in the JMX Remote 
API standard. A typical example of this is a connector based on a 
protocol that uses HTTP/S. Other protocols are also possible. The JMX 
specification describes how to implement a connector based on a 
user-defined protocol.”


Unless I’m missing something, this all suggests that there is 
nothing inherently wrong is using REST behind a JMXConnector.
I hope above should clarify what I refer to when I say JMXConnector. 
In that sense, REST APIs alone cannot work as connector. In fact, it 
stands parallel to connector, as in it directly wraps the MBeanServer 
and does not wrap any JMXConnector. The JEP has detailed information 
about where the REST adapter sits in the JMX architecture.


Are you suggesting that we implement a JMXConnector that works over REST?


As written this JEP pretty much looks like Jolokia. Jolokia is a 
great project and as such I fail to see the benefits of simply 
duplicating it. I’d also argue that the usefulness of that project 
has been some what muted because it is not a drop in replacement for 
the standard RMI connector meaning that one has to modify an entire 
tool chain just to make use of it. However, creating a REST based 
JMXConnector would be immediately useful.
As an aside, Jus last week I started on a JMXConnector that uses a 
shared memory segment for communications. Of course this 
implementation would only be available for local communications but 
it offers some advantages over using a socket based protocol, even if 
that comms is over local loopback.


Kind regards,
Kirk Pepperdine


Thanks
Harsha




On Sep 12, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Harsha Wardhana B 
> 
wrote:


Hi Kirk,

REST APIs work as an adapter and cannot work as a connector. To 
quote from the JEP,



The REST adapter is a part of the Distributed services level. 
Connectors mirror the interfaces of agent level services to remote 
clients, whereas adapters transform agent level services to 
different protocol. The proposed functionality will transform Agent 
level services to REST APIs, hence the name "REST adapter".
A connector *must* adhere to the JMX remoting spec. REST APIs cannot 
adhere to that because they expose APIs via HTTP and not Java. Hence 
it is called an Adapter and not a connector. It can never work as a 
'drop-in' replacement for JMX/RMI Connector. Existing tools using 
using RMIConnector will have to be modified to use REST APIs.


The current JEP does not allow all of the CRUD operations on MBeans. 
In the spirit of keeping the APIs language agnostic, only read/write 
is supported. It is not possible to specify create/delete REST APIs 
for JMX without incorporating language specific features. I would 
welcome discussions around including create/delete APIs for MBeans.


In lieu of the above, as of now REST adapter cannot exist 
independently and will have to live along-side RMIConnector.


-Harsha


On Monday 11 September 2017 09:05 PM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:

Hi Harsha,

The only reason I mentioned Jolokia is that it’s a project that 
usefulness is some what limited because it is *not* a compliment 
JMX connector and as such cannot be used as a straight drop-in 
replacement for the current RMI based connector. Is your plan here 
to make it a fully compliant connector so that we could configure 
tooling such as the MBean viewers in jConsole and VisualVM (or JMC 
for that matter) to use a restful connector instead of an RMI based 
connector? IMHO, doing so would represent a huge win as I know of 
quite a few projects that cannot or will not use JMX because of 
it’s reliance on RMI.


Consolidating all of the options under a single flag looks like 
another interesting win.


Kind regards,
Kirk



On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Harsha Wardhana B 

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Harsha Wardhana B]

Hi Kirk,

I guess the term 'connector' here is loosely applied. When I say 
connector, I mean the connector that provides implementation of the 
package below,


https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/javax/management/remote/package-summary.html

RMIConnector is one implementation of above connector.


On Tuesday 12 September 2017 12:56 PM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:

Hi Harsha,

From Chapter 5 of the JMX documentation. "Many different 
implementations of connectors are possible. In particular, there are 
many possibilities for the protocol used to communicate over a 
connection between client and server.”


It goes on in the Generic Connector section under "User-Defined 
Protocols” to say; "While the RMI connector must be present in every 
implementation of the JMX Remote API, you can also implement a 
connector based on a protocol that is not defined in the JMX Remote 
API standard. A typical example of this is a connector based on a 
protocol that uses HTTP/S. Other protocols are also possible. The JMX 
specification describes how to implement a connector based on a 
user-defined protocol.”


Unless I’m missing something, this all suggests that there is 
nothing inherently wrong is using REST behind a JMXConnector.
I hope above should clarify what I refer to when I say JMXConnector. In 
that sense, REST APIs alone cannot work as connector. In fact, it stands 
parallel to connector, as in it directly wraps the MBeanServer and does 
not wrap any JMXConnector. The JEP has detailed information about where 
the REST adapter sits in the JMX architecture.


Are you suggesting that we implement a JMXConnector that works over REST?


As written this JEP pretty much looks like Jolokia. Jolokia is a great 
project and as such I fail to see the benefits of simply duplicating 
it. I’d also argue that the usefulness of that project has been some 
what muted because it is not a drop in replacement for the standard 
RMI connector meaning that one has to modify an entire tool chain just 
to make use of it. However, creating a REST based JMXConnector would 
be immediately useful.
As an aside, Jus last week I started on a JMXConnector that uses a 
shared memory segment for communications. Of course this 
implementation would only be available for local communications but it 
offers some advantages over using a socket based protocol, even if 
that comms is over local loopback.


Kind regards,
Kirk Pepperdine


Thanks
Harsha




On Sep 12, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Harsha Wardhana B 
> 
wrote:


Hi Kirk,

REST APIs work as an adapter and cannot work as a connector. To quote 
from the JEP,



The REST adapter is a part of the Distributed services level. 
Connectors mirror the interfaces of agent level services to remote 
clients, whereas adapters transform agent level services to 
different protocol. The proposed functionality will transform Agent 
level services to REST APIs, hence the name "REST adapter".
A connector *must* adhere to the JMX remoting spec. REST APIs cannot 
adhere to that because they expose APIs via HTTP and not Java. Hence 
it is called an Adapter and not a connector. It can never work as a 
'drop-in' replacement for JMX/RMI Connector. Existing tools using 
using RMIConnector will have to be modified to use REST APIs.


The current JEP does not allow all of the CRUD operations on MBeans. 
In the spirit of keeping the APIs language agnostic, only read/write 
is supported. It is not possible to specify create/delete REST APIs 
for JMX without incorporating language specific features. I would 
welcome discussions around including create/delete APIs for MBeans.


In lieu of the above, as of now REST adapter cannot exist 
independently and will have to live along-side RMIConnector.


-Harsha


On Monday 11 September 2017 09:05 PM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:

Hi Harsha,

The only reason I mentioned Jolokia is that it’s a project that 
usefulness is some what limited because it is *not* a compliment JMX 
connector and as such cannot be used as a straight drop-in 
replacement for the current RMI based connector. Is your plan here 
to make it a fully compliant connector so that we could configure 
tooling such as the MBean viewers in jConsole and VisualVM (or JMC 
for that matter) to use a restful connector instead of an RMI based 
connector? IMHO, doing so would represent a huge win as I know of 
quite a few projects that cannot or will not use JMX because of it’s 
reliance on RMI.


Consolidating all of the options under a single flag looks like 
another interesting win.


Kind regards,
Kirk



On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Harsha Wardhana B 
> wrote:


Hi Erik,


On Monday 11 September 2017 07:14 PM, Erik Gahlin wrote:

Hi Harsha,

I haven't looked at Jolokia, or know what is the most reasonable 
approach in this case, but as a principle, I think we should 
strive for the best possible 

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Kirk Pepperdine]

Hi Harsha,

From Chapter 5 of the JMX documentation. "Many different implementations of 
connectors are possible. In particular, there are many possibilities for the 
protocol used to communicate over a connection between client and server.”

It goes on in the Generic Connector section under "User-Defined Protocols” to 
say; "While the RMI connector must be present in every implementation of the 
JMX Remote API, you can also implement a connector based on a protocol that is 
not defined in the JMX Remote API standard. A typical example of this is a 
connector based on a protocol that uses HTTP/S. Other protocols are also 
possible. The JMX specification describes how to implement a connector based on 
a user-defined protocol.”

Unless I’m missing something, this all suggests that there is nothing 
inherently wrong is using REST behind a JMXConnector.

As written this JEP pretty much looks like Jolokia. Jolokia is a great project 
and as such I fail to see the benefits of simply duplicating it. I’d also argue 
that the usefulness of that project has been some what muted because it is not 
a drop in replacement for the standard RMI connector meaning that one has to 
modify an entire tool chain just to make use of it. However, creating a REST 
based JMXConnector would be immediately useful.

As an aside, Jus last week I started on a JMXConnector that uses a shared 
memory segment for communications. Of course this implementation would only be 
available for local communications but it offers some advantages over using a 
socket based protocol, even if that comms is over local loopback.

Kind regards,
Kirk Pepperdine



> On Sep 12, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Harsha Wardhana B  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Kirk,
> 
> REST APIs work as an adapter and cannot work as a connector. To quote from 
> the JEP,
> 
> 
>> The REST adapter is a part of the Distributed services level. Connectors 
>> mirror the interfaces of agent level services to remote clients, whereas 
>> adapters transform agent level services to different protocol. The proposed 
>> functionality will transform Agent level services to REST APIs, hence the 
>> name "REST adapter".
> A connector *must* adhere to the JMX remoting spec. REST APIs cannot adhere 
> to that because they expose APIs via HTTP and not Java. Hence it is called an 
> Adapter and not a connector. It can never work as a 'drop-in' replacement for 
> JMX/RMI Connector. Existing tools using using RMIConnector will have to be 
> modified to use REST APIs. 
> 
> The current JEP does not allow all of the CRUD operations on MBeans. In the 
> spirit of keeping the APIs language agnostic, only read/write is supported. 
> It is not possible to specify create/delete REST APIs for JMX without 
> incorporating language specific features. I would welcome discussions around 
> including create/delete APIs for MBeans. 
> In lieu of the above, as of now REST adapter cannot exist independently and 
> will have to live along-side RMIConnector. 
> -Harsha
> 
> On Monday 11 September 2017 09:05 PM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:
>> Hi Harsha,
>> 
>> The only reason I mentioned Jolokia is that it’s a project that usefulness 
>> is some what limited because it is *not* a compliment JMX connector and as 
>> such cannot be used as a straight drop-in replacement for the current RMI 
>> based connector. Is your plan here to make it a fully compliant connector so 
>> that we could configure tooling such as the MBean viewers in jConsole and 
>> VisualVM (or JMC for that matter) to use a restful connector instead of an 
>> RMI based connector? IMHO, doing so would represent a huge win as I know of 
>> quite a few projects that cannot or will not use JMX because of it’s 
>> reliance on RMI.
>> 
>> Consolidating all of the options under a single flag looks like another 
>> interesting win.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Kirk
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Harsha Wardhana B 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Erik,
>>> 
>>> On Monday 11 September 2017 07:14 PM, Erik Gahlin wrote:
 Hi Harsha,
 
 I haven't looked at Jolokia, or know what is the most reasonable approach 
 in this case, but as a principle, I think we should strive for the best 
 possible design rather than trying to be compatible with third party tools.
>>> Agreed. That will always be the first priority. That is the reason HTTP GET 
>>> interfaces will not be changed. I am undecided if the POST payloads need to 
>>> be changed (without compromising the REST design principles) to increase 
>>> adoption of this feature. 
 
 How will the command line look like to start the agent with the rest 
 adapter?
 
 In the past there have been discussions about adding syntactic sugar for 
 -Dcom.sun.management, i.e.
 
 -Xmanagement:ssl=false,port=7091,authenticate=false
 
 instead of
 
 -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.ssl=false 
 

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Harsha Wardhana B]

Hi Kirk,

REST APIs work as an adapter and cannot work as a connector. To quote 
from the JEP,


The REST adapter is a part of the Distributed services level. 
Connectors mirror the interfaces of agent level services to remote 
clients, whereas adapters transform agent level services to different 
protocol. The proposed functionality will transform Agent level 
services to REST APIs, hence the name "REST adapter".
A connector *must* adhere to the JMX remoting spec. REST APIs cannot 
adhere to that because they expose APIs via HTTP and not Java. Hence it 
is called an Adapter and not a connector. It can never work as a 
'drop-in' replacement for JMX/RMI Connector. Existing tools using using 
RMIConnector will have to be modified to use REST APIs.


The current JEP does not allow all of the CRUD operations on MBeans. In 
the spirit of keeping the APIs language agnostic, only read/write is 
supported. It is not possible to specify create/delete REST APIs for JMX 
without incorporating language specific features. I would welcome 
discussions around including create/delete APIs for MBeans.


In lieu of the above, as of now REST adapter cannot exist independently 
and will have to live along-side RMIConnector.


-Harsha


On Monday 11 September 2017 09:05 PM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:

Hi Harsha,

The only reason I mentioned Jolokia is that it’s a project that 
usefulness is some what limited because it is *not* a compliment JMX 
connector and as such cannot be used as a straight drop-in replacement 
for the current RMI based connector. Is your plan here to make it a 
fully compliant connector so that we could configure tooling such as 
the MBean viewers in jConsole and VisualVM (or JMC for that matter) to 
use a restful connector instead of an RMI based connector? IMHO, doing 
so would represent a huge win as I know of quite a few projects that 
cannot or will not use JMX because of it’s reliance on RMI.


Consolidating all of the options under a single flag looks like 
another interesting win.


Kind regards,
Kirk



On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Harsha Wardhana B 
> 
wrote:


Hi Erik,


On Monday 11 September 2017 07:14 PM, Erik Gahlin wrote:

Hi Harsha,

I haven't looked at Jolokia, or know what is the most reasonable 
approach in this case, but as a principle, I think we should strive 
for the best possible design rather than trying to be compatible 
with third party tools.
Agreed. That will always be the first priority. That is the reason 
HTTP GET interfaces will not be changed. I am undecided if the POST 
payloads need to be changed (without compromising the REST design 
principles) to increase adoption of this feature.


How will the command line look like to start the agent with the rest 
adapter?


In the past there have been discussions about adding syntactic sugar 
for -Dcom.sun.management, i.e.


-Xmanagement:ssl=false,port=7091,authenticate=false

instead of

-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.ssl=false
-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.port=7091
-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.authenticate=false

which is hard to remember, cumbersome to write and error prone since 
the parameters are not validated. If we are adding support for REST, 
it could perhaps be default, i.e.


-Xmanagement:ssl=false,authenticate=false,port=80

If you want to use JMX over RMI you would specify protocol:

-Xmanagement:ssl=false,port=7091,authenticate=false,protocol=rmi
Yes. There is an enhancement request to add the -Xmanagemet:* 
syntatic sugar for -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.* flags. REST 
adapter will use one of the above flags though I haven't thought of 
the exact name for it yet. I will update the JEP with the details of 
the flag shortly.


Has there been any thoughts about JMX notifications?

Notifications will not be supported in this JEP.

  * MBean Notifications are not a widely used feature and will not be
supported via the REST adapter.



I know it is outside the scope of the JEP, but I think we should 
take it into consideration when doing the design, so the 
functionality could be added on later without too much difficulty.
Notifications can be added without modifying the current design too 
much. If required, it will be worked upon via an enhancement request.


Thanks
Erik


Thanks
Harsha


Hi Martin,

In my opinion, the interfaces exposed by current JEP are lot closer 
to REST style than the interfaces exposed by Jolokia.


For instance, HTTP GET by default should be used to read resources, 
but it is made part of URL in Jolokia interfaces.


/read///

I would wait on opinions from more people before considering 
changing the current interfaces.


Thanks
-Harsha

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 11:40 AM, Martin Skarsaune wrote:

Hello

Would one at least consider adopting the same URL paths and 
payloads as Jolokia? This could make life a lot easier for third 
party tools that connect to it.


Best Regards

Martin Skarsaune

ons. 6. sep. 2017 

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Kirk Pepperdine]

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:30 PM, Martin Skarsaune  wrote:
> 
> I can agree to that. To be concrete, what does the JEP as it currently stands 
> offer over jolokia to be able to support JMXConnector? Could the client 
> interface and protocol be two separate concerns? 

The interface and the protocol clearly are two separate concerns. The interface 
in JMX is clearly defined and while the default protocol is RMI, it does not 
have to be RMI.

> 
> BTW: jolokia 2.0 will have support for JMX Notifications 
> https://ro14nd.de/jolokia-notifications 
> 
Yes, my comment in the past has always been… it would be wonderful if jolokia 
fully supported JMXConnector but unfortunately it doesn’t which means you 
cannot easily use existing JMX clients with it. Other than that, it’s really 
useful in environments where using RMI is an issue. I think this where we can 
learn from jolokia.

Kind regards,
Kirk Pepperdine
  
> 
> Best Regards
> Martin Skarsaune 
> 
> man. 11. sep. 2017 kl. 21:55 skrev Kirk Pepperdine  >:
>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Martin Skarsaune > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Harsha and Erik
>> 
>> I certainly understand the desire to design the API well. 
>> My point was just that when there is a mature battle-tested de-facto 
>> solution out in the wild,
> 
> I would agree that there are lessons to be learned from Jolokia. It is a 
> great/useful tool but it is not a JMXConnector. IMHO the REST layer should be 
> implemented as a JMXConnector. It is the implementation that has the ability 
> to integrate with widest set of exiting tooling. 
> 
> Kind regards,
> Kirk Pepperdine
> 
>> it would be a pity not to see potential for interoperability where the 
>> solutions are in fact really close. 
>> To illustrate where I'm coming from, I hacked the source of a plugin that is 
>> able to control the flight recorder via JMX , to adapt the POST payloads to 
>> this JEP. 
>> Assuming I understood it correctly the changes are quite small, but would 
>> the require a complete rewrite of all plugins, a layer of indirection or 
>> even worse a compatibility layer to use it. 
>> Note: I assumed the arguments are still an array and not an object?  ([] , 
>> not {}) ?
>> 
>> You can see an example of what changes would typically be needed here:
>> https://github.com/skarsaune/hawtio/commit/36ca65f495f05d20061b001fcc291ed3bc6e183f
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> 
>> man. 11. sep. 2017 kl. 17:36 skrev Kirk Pepperdine 
>> >:
>> Hi Harsha,
>> 
>> The only reason I mentioned Jolokia is that it’s a project that usefulness 
>> is some what limited because it is *not* a compliment JMX connector and as 
>> such cannot be used as a straight drop-in replacement for the current RMI 
>> based connector. Is your plan here to make it a fully compliant connector so 
>> that we could configure tooling such as the MBean viewers in jConsole and 
>> VisualVM (or JMC for that matter) to use a restful connector instead of an 
>> RMI based connector? IMHO, doing so would represent a huge win as I know of 
>> quite a few projects that cannot or will not use JMX because of it’s 
>> reliance on RMI.
>> 
>> Consolidating all of the options under a single flag looks like another 
>> interesting win.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Kirk
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Harsha Wardhana B 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Erik,
>>> 
>>> On Monday 11 September 2017 07:14 PM, Erik Gahlin wrote:
 Hi Harsha,
 
 I haven't looked at Jolokia, or know what is the most reasonable approach 
 in this case, but as a principle, I think we should strive for the best 
 possible design rather than trying to be compatible with third party tools.
>>> Agreed. That will always be the first priority. That is the reason HTTP GET 
>>> interfaces will not be changed. I am undecided if the POST payloads need to 
>>> be changed (without compromising the REST design principles) to increase 
>>> adoption of this feature. 
 
 How will the command line look like to start the agent with the rest 
 adapter?
 
 In the past there have been discussions about adding syntactic sugar for 
 -Dcom.sun.management, i.e.
 
 -Xmanagement:ssl=false,port=7091,authenticate=false
 
 instead of
 
 -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.ssl=false 
 -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.port=7091
 -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.authenticate=false 
 
 which is hard to remember, cumbersome to write and error prone since the 
 parameters are not validated. If we are adding support for REST, it could 
 perhaps be default, i.e.
 
 

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Martin Skarsaune]

I can agree to that. To be concrete, what does the JEP as it currently
stands offer over jolokia to be able to support JMXConnector? Could the
client interface and protocol be two separate concerns?

BTW: jolokia 2.0 will have support for JMX Notifications
https://ro14nd.de/jolokia-notifications

Best Regards
Martin Skarsaune

man. 11. sep. 2017 kl. 21:55 skrev Kirk Pepperdine <
kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com>:

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Martin Skarsaune 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Harsha and Erik
>
> I certainly understand the desire to design the API well.
> My point was just that when there is a mature battle-tested de-facto
> solution out in the wild,
>
>
> I would agree that there are lessons to be learned from Jolokia. It is a
> great/useful tool but it is not a JMXConnector. IMHO the REST layer should
> be implemented as a JMXConnector. It is the implementation that has the
> ability to integrate with widest set of exiting tooling.
>
> Kind regards,
> Kirk Pepperdine
>
> it would be a pity not to see potential for interoperability where the
> solutions are in fact really close.
> To illustrate where I'm coming from, I hacked the source of a plugin that
> is able to control the flight recorder via JMX , to adapt the POST payloads
> to this JEP.
> Assuming I understood it correctly the changes are quite small, but would
> the require a complete rewrite of all plugins, a layer of indirection or
> even worse a compatibility layer to use it.
> Note: I assumed the arguments are still an array and not an object?  ([] ,
> not {}) ?
>
> You can see an example of what changes would typically be needed here:
>
> https://github.com/skarsaune/hawtio/commit/36ca65f495f05d20061b001fcc291ed3bc6e183f
>
> Cheers
>
> Martin
>
>
> man. 11. sep. 2017 kl. 17:36 skrev Kirk Pepperdine <
> kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi Harsha,
>>
>> The only reason I mentioned Jolokia is that it’s a project that
>> usefulness is some what limited because it is *not* a compliment JMX
>> connector and as such cannot be used as a straight drop-in replacement for
>> the current RMI based connector. Is your plan here to make it a fully
>> compliant connector so that we could configure tooling such as the MBean
>> viewers in jConsole and VisualVM (or JMC for that matter) to use a restful
>> connector instead of an RMI based connector? IMHO, doing so would represent
>> a huge win as I know of quite a few projects that cannot or will not use
>> JMX because of it’s reliance on RMI.
>>
>> Consolidating all of the options under a single flag looks like another
>> interesting win.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Kirk
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Harsha Wardhana B <
>> harsha.wardhan...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Erik,
>>
>> On Monday 11 September 2017 07:14 PM, Erik Gahlin wrote:
>>
>> Hi Harsha,
>>
>> I haven't looked at Jolokia, or know what is the most reasonable approach
>> in this case, but as a principle, I think we should strive for the best
>> possible design rather than trying to be compatible with third party tools.
>>
>> Agreed. That will always be the first priority. That is the reason HTTP
>> GET interfaces will not be changed. I am undecided if the POST payloads
>> need to be changed (without compromising the REST design principles) to
>> increase adoption of this feature.
>>
>>
>> How will the command line look like to start the agent with the rest
>> adapter?
>>
>> In the past there have been discussions about adding syntactic sugar for
>> -Dcom.sun.management, i.e.
>>
>> -Xmanagement:ssl=false,port=7091,authenticate=false
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.ssl=false
>> -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.port=7091
>> -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.authenticate=false
>>
>> which is hard to remember, cumbersome to write and error prone since the
>> parameters are not validated. If we are adding support for REST, it could
>> perhaps be default, i.e.
>>
>> -Xmanagement:ssl=false,authenticate=false,port=80
>>
>> If you want to use JMX over RMI you would specify protocol:
>>
>> -Xmanagement:ssl=false,port=7091,authenticate=false,protocol=rmi
>>
>> Yes. There is an enhancement request to add the -Xmanagemet:* syntatic
>> sugar for -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.* flags. REST adapter will use one
>> of the above flags though I haven't thought of the exact name for it yet. I
>> will update the JEP with the details of the flag shortly.
>>
>>
>> Has there been any thoughts about JMX notifications?
>>
>> Notifications will not be supported in this JEP.
>>
>>- MBean Notifications are not a widely used feature and will not be
>>supported via the REST adapter.
>>
>>
>> I know it is outside the scope of the JEP, but I think we should take it
>> into consideration when doing the design, so the functionality could be
>> added on later without too much difficulty.
>>
>> Notifications can be added without modifying the current design too much.
>> If required, it will be worked upon via an enhancement request.
>>

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Kirk Pepperdine]

Hi Harsha,

The only reason I mentioned Jolokia is that it’s a project that usefulness is 
some what limited because it is *not* a compliment JMX connector and as such 
cannot be used as a straight drop-in replacement for the current RMI based 
connector. Is your plan here to make it a fully compliant connector so that we 
could configure tooling such as the MBean viewers in jConsole and VisualVM (or 
JMC for that matter) to use a restful connector instead of an RMI based 
connector? IMHO, doing so would represent a huge win as I know of quite a few 
projects that cannot or will not use JMX because of it’s reliance on RMI.

Consolidating all of the options under a single flag looks like another 
interesting win.

Kind regards,
Kirk



> On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Harsha Wardhana B  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Erik,
> 
> On Monday 11 September 2017 07:14 PM, Erik Gahlin wrote:
>> Hi Harsha,
>> 
>> I haven't looked at Jolokia, or know what is the most reasonable approach in 
>> this case, but as a principle, I think we should strive for the best 
>> possible design rather than trying to be compatible with third party tools.
> Agreed. That will always be the first priority. That is the reason HTTP GET 
> interfaces will not be changed. I am undecided if the POST payloads need to 
> be changed (without compromising the REST design principles) to increase 
> adoption of this feature. 
>> 
>> How will the command line look like to start the agent with the rest adapter?
>> 
>> In the past there have been discussions about adding syntactic sugar for 
>> -Dcom.sun.management, i.e.
>> 
>> -Xmanagement:ssl=false,port=7091,authenticate=false
>> 
>> instead of
>> 
>> -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.ssl=false 
>> -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.port=7091
>> -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.authenticate=false 
>> 
>> which is hard to remember, cumbersome to write and error prone since the 
>> parameters are not validated. If we are adding support for REST, it could 
>> perhaps be default, i.e.
>> 
>> -Xmanagement:ssl=false,authenticate=false,port=80
>> 
>> If you want to use JMX over RMI you would specify protocol:
>> 
>> -Xmanagement:ssl=false,port=7091,authenticate=false,protocol=rmi
> Yes. There is an enhancement request to add the -Xmanagemet:* syntatic sugar 
> for -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.* flags. REST adapter will use one of the 
> above flags though I haven't thought of the exact name for it yet. I will 
> update the JEP with the details of the flag shortly. 
>> 
>> Has there been any thoughts about JMX notifications?
> Notifications will not be supported in this JEP. 
> MBean Notifications are not a widely used feature and will not be supported 
> via the REST adapter.
>> 
>> I know it is outside the scope of the JEP, but I think we should take it 
>> into consideration when doing the design, so the functionality could be 
>> added on later without too much difficulty.
> Notifications can be added without modifying the current design too much. If 
> required, it will be worked upon via an enhancement request. 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Erik
>> 
> Thanks
> Harsha
>>> Hi Martin,
>>> 
>>> In my opinion, the interfaces exposed by current JEP are lot closer to REST 
>>> style than the interfaces exposed by Jolokia. 
>>> For instance, HTTP GET by default should be used to read resources, but it 
>>> is made part of URL in Jolokia interfaces.
>>> 
>>> /read///
>>> 
>>> I would wait on opinions from more people before considering changing the 
>>> current interfaces.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> -Harsha
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday 06 September 2017 11:40 AM, Martin Skarsaune wrote:
 Hello
 
 Would one at least consider adopting the same URL paths and payloads as 
 Jolokia? This could make life a lot easier for third party tools that 
 connect to it. 
 
 Best Regards
 
 Martin Skarsaune 
 
 ons. 6. sep. 2017 kl. 07:04 skrev Harsha Wardhana B 
 >:
 Hi Kirk,
 
 Yes. Jolokia was considered and is listed as an alternative in the JEP.
 
 Jolokia can serve as a viable alternative but can be bulky. We are looking 
 for simple and lightweight solution.
 
 -Harsha
 
 On Wednesday 06 September 2017 10:21 AM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Have you run into this project? https://jolokia.org 
> . Unfortunately it’s not exactly a drop in 
> replacement for the standard RMI based JMX connector but it’s not far off.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Kirk
> 
 
>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Erik Gahlin  
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Harsha,
>> 
>> Looping in jmx-dev.
>> 
>>> byte[], short[], int[], float[], double[]
>> Should long[] be included there as well?
>> 
>>> The REST adapter will come with a simple and lightweight JSON parser.
>> 

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Harsha Wardhana B]

Hi Erik,


On Monday 11 September 2017 07:14 PM, Erik Gahlin wrote:

Hi Harsha,

I haven't looked at Jolokia, or know what is the most reasonable 
approach in this case, but as a principle, I think we should strive 
for the best possible design rather than trying to be compatible with 
third party tools.
Agreed. That will always be the first priority. That is the reason HTTP 
GET interfaces will not be changed. I am undecided if the POST payloads 
need to be changed (without compromising the REST design principles) to 
increase adoption of this feature.


How will the command line look like to start the agent with the rest 
adapter?


In the past there have been discussions about adding syntactic sugar 
for -Dcom.sun.management, i.e.


-Xmanagement:ssl=false,port=7091,authenticate=false

instead of

-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.ssl=false
-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.port=7091
-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.authenticate=false

which is hard to remember, cumbersome to write and error prone since 
the parameters are not validated. If we are adding support for REST, 
it could perhaps be default, i.e.


-Xmanagement:ssl=false,authenticate=false,port=80

If you want to use JMX over RMI you would specify protocol:

-Xmanagement:ssl=false,port=7091,authenticate=false,protocol=rmi
Yes. There is an enhancement request to add the -Xmanagemet:* syntatic 
sugar for -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.* flags. REST adapter will use 
one of the above flags though I haven't thought of the exact name for it 
yet. I will update the JEP with the details of the flag shortly.


Has there been any thoughts about JMX notifications?

Notifications will not be supported in this JEP.

 * MBean Notifications are not a widely used feature and will not be
   supported via the REST adapter.



I know it is outside the scope of the JEP, but I think we should take 
it into consideration when doing the design, so the functionality 
could be added on later without too much difficulty.
Notifications can be added without modifying the current design too 
much. If required, it will be worked upon via an enhancement request.


Thanks
Erik


Thanks
Harsha


Hi Martin,

In my opinion, the interfaces exposed by current JEP are lot closer 
to REST style than the interfaces exposed by Jolokia.


For instance, HTTP GET by default should be used to read resources, 
but it is made part of URL in Jolokia interfaces.


/read///

I would wait on opinions from more people before considering changing 
the current interfaces.


Thanks
-Harsha

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 11:40 AM, Martin Skarsaune wrote:

Hello

Would one at least consider adopting the same URL paths and payloads 
as Jolokia? This could make life a lot easier for third party tools 
that connect to it.


Best Regards

Martin Skarsaune

ons. 6. sep. 2017 kl. 07:04 skrev Harsha Wardhana B 
>:


Hi Kirk,

Yes. Jolokia was considered and is listed as an alternative in
the JEP.

  * Jolokia can serve as a viable alternative but can be bulky.
We are looking for simple and lightweight solution.


-Harsha

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 10:21 AM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:

Hi,

Have you run into this project?https://jolokia.org. Unfortunately it’s not 
exactly a drop in replacement for the standard RMI based JMX connector but it’s 
not far off.

Kind regards,
Kirk


On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Erik Gahlin 
  wrote:

Hi Harsha,

Looping in jmx-dev.


byte[], short[], int[], float[], double[]

Should long[] be included there as well?


The REST adapter will come with a simple and lightweight JSON parser.

Is this an internal parser or will it be exposed as an API?

If so, how does it relate to JEP 198: Light-Weight JSON API?
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/198

Will com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer be used to serve the requests?

Thanks
Erik


Hi All,

Please review the JEP for REST APIs for JMX :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171311

The JEP aims at providing RESTful web interfaces to MBeans.

Access to MBeans registered in a MBeanServer running inside a JVM requires 
a Java client. Language-agnostic access to MBeans will require spawning a Java 
client which can be cumbersome. The proposed JEP allows MBeans to be accessed 
in a language/platform-independent, ubiquitous and seamless manner.

Thanks
-Harsha

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Erik Gahlin]

Hi Harsha,

I haven't looked at Jolokia, or know what is the most reasonable 
approach in this case, but as a principle, I think we should strive for 
the best possible design rather than trying to be compatible with third 
party tools.


How will the command line look like to start the agent with the rest 
adapter?


In the past there have been discussions about adding syntactic sugar for 
-Dcom.sun.management, i.e.


-Xmanagement:ssl=false,port=7091,authenticate=false

instead of

-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.ssl=false
-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.port=7091
-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.authenticate=false

which is hard to remember, cumbersome to write and error prone since the 
parameters are not validated. If we are adding support for REST, it 
could perhaps be default, i.e.


-Xmanagement:ssl=false,authenticate=false,port=80

If you want to use JMX over RMI you would specify protocol:

-Xmanagement:ssl=false,port=7091,authenticate=false,protocol=rmi

Has there been any thoughts about JMX notifications?

I know it is outside the scope of the JEP, but I think we should take it 
into consideration when doing the design, so the functionality could be 
added on later without too much difficulty.


Thanks
Erik


Hi Martin,

In my opinion, the interfaces exposed by current JEP are lot closer to 
REST style than the interfaces exposed by Jolokia.


For instance, HTTP GET by default should be used to read resources, 
but it is made part of URL in Jolokia interfaces.


/read///

I would wait on opinions from more people before considering changing 
the current interfaces.


Thanks
-Harsha

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 11:40 AM, Martin Skarsaune wrote:

Hello

Would one at least consider adopting the same URL paths and payloads 
as Jolokia? This could make life a lot easier for third party tools 
that connect to it.


Best Regards

Martin Skarsaune

ons. 6. sep. 2017 kl. 07:04 skrev Harsha Wardhana B 
>:


Hi Kirk,

Yes. Jolokia was considered and is listed as an alternative in
the JEP.

  * Jolokia can serve as a viable alternative but can be bulky.
We are looking for simple and lightweight solution.


-Harsha

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 10:21 AM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:

Hi,

Have you run into this project?https://jolokia.org. Unfortunately it’s not 
exactly a drop in replacement for the standard RMI based JMX connector but it’s 
not far off.

Kind regards,
Kirk


On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Erik Gahlin 
  wrote:

Hi Harsha,

Looping in jmx-dev.


byte[], short[], int[], float[], double[]

Should long[] be included there as well?


The REST adapter will come with a simple and lightweight JSON parser.

Is this an internal parser or will it be exposed as an API?

If so, how does it relate to JEP 198: Light-Weight JSON API?
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/198

Will com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer be used to serve the requests?

Thanks
Erik


Hi All,

Please review the JEP for REST APIs for JMX :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171311

The JEP aims at providing RESTful web interfaces to MBeans.

Access to MBeans registered in a MBeanServer running inside a JVM requires 
a Java client. Language-agnostic access to MBeans will require spawning a Java 
client which can be cumbersome. The proposed JEP allows MBeans to be accessed 
in a language/platform-independent, ubiquitous and seamless manner.

Thanks
-Harsha

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Martin Skarsaune]

Hello

Would one at least consider adopting the same URL paths and payloads as
Jolokia? This could make life a lot easier for third party tools that
connect to it.

Best Regards

Martin Skarsaune

ons. 6. sep. 2017 kl. 07:04 skrev Harsha Wardhana B <
harsha.wardhan...@oracle.com>:

> Hi Kirk,
>
> Yes. Jolokia was considered and is listed as an alternative in the JEP.
>
>
>- Jolokia can serve as a viable alternative but can be bulky. We are
>looking for simple and lightweight solution.
>
>
> -Harsha
>
> On Wednesday 06 September 2017 10:21 AM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Have you run into this project? https://jolokia.org. Unfortunately it’s not 
> exactly a drop in replacement for the standard RMI based JMX connector but 
> it’s not far off.
>
> Kind regards,
> Kirk
>
>
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Erik Gahlin  
>  wrote:
>
> Hi Harsha,
>
> Looping in jmx-dev.
>
>
> byte[], short[], int[], float[], double[]
>
>
> Should long[] be included there as well?
>
>
> The REST adapter will come with a simple and lightweight JSON parser.
>
>
> Is this an internal parser or will it be exposed as an API?
>
> If so, how does it relate to JEP 198: Light-Weight JSON 
> API?http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/198
>
> Will com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer be used to serve the requests?
>
> Thanks
> Erik
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> Please review the JEP for REST APIs for JMX :
>https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171311
>
> The JEP aims at providing RESTful web interfaces to MBeans.
>
> Access to MBeans registered in a MBeanServer running inside a JVM requires a 
> Java client. Language-agnostic access to MBeans will require spawning a Java 
> client which can be cumbersome. The proposed JEP allows MBeans to be accessed 
> in a language/platform-independent, ubiquitous and seamless manner.
>
> Thanks
> -Harsha
>
>
>
>

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Harsha Wardhana B]

Hi Martin,

I will take a second look at POST payloads.

Thanks

Harsha


On Thursday 07 September 2017 02:16 AM, Martin Skarsaune wrote:
How about POST payloads? Since they are so similar already, it would 
be a huge advantage if they could be made interchangeable.


For instance I have done some work on hawt.io  
plugins. A typical scenario for a plugin is to set up one or more 
chained requests for read/write/exec on an MBean, and have a callback 
process the response. If the payloads were compatible, the road to 
support this new backend might not be too difficult. That would give 
this new initiative a real boost over traditional JMX connections.
Otherwise one would have to impose an additional layer of complexity 
to bridge the difference.


I suppose you know these tools very well already. There is by the way 
a presentation on JMX, Jolokia and hawt.io  at 
JavaZone in a weeks time, and the recording is usually made available 
just a few hours later: 
https://2017.javazone.no/program/bbe08ad550174e16abd954733e018590


Best regards

Martin

ons. 6. sep. 2017 kl. 08:47 skrev Harsha Wardhana B 
>:


Hi Martin,

In my opinion, the interfaces exposed by current JEP are lot
closer to REST style than the interfaces exposed by Jolokia.

For instance, HTTP GET by default should be used to read
resources, but it is made part of URL in Jolokia interfaces.

/read///


I would wait on opinions from more people before considering
changing the current interfaces.

Thanks

-Harsha


On Wednesday 06 September 2017 11:40 AM, Martin Skarsaune wrote:

Hello

Would one at least consider adopting the same URL paths and
payloads as Jolokia? This could make life a lot easier for third
party tools that connect to it.

Best Regards

Martin Skarsaune

ons. 6. sep. 2017 kl. 07:04 skrev Harsha Wardhana B
>:

Hi Kirk,

Yes. Jolokia was considered and is listed as an alternative
in the JEP.

  * Jolokia can serve as a viable alternative but can be
bulky. We are looking for simple and lightweight solution.


-Harsha

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 10:21 AM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:

Hi,

Have you run into this project?https://jolokia.org. Unfortunately it’s 
not exactly a drop in replacement for the standard RMI based JMX connector but 
it’s not far off.

Kind regards,
Kirk


On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Erik Gahlin 
  wrote:

Hi Harsha,

Looping in jmx-dev.


byte[], short[], int[], float[], double[]

Should long[] be included there as well?


The REST adapter will come with a simple and lightweight JSON parser.

Is this an internal parser or will it be exposed as an API?

If so, how does it relate to JEP 198: Light-Weight JSON API?
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/198

Will com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer be used to serve the requests?

Thanks
Erik


Hi All,

Please review the JEP for REST APIs for JMX :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171311

The JEP aims at providing RESTful web interfaces to MBeans.

Access to MBeans registered in a MBeanServer running inside a JVM 
requires a Java client. Language-agnostic access to MBeans will require 
spawning a Java client which can be cumbersome. The proposed JEP allows MBeans 
to be accessed in a language/platform-independent, ubiquitous and seamless 
manner.

Thanks
-Harsha

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Martin Skarsaune]

How about POST payloads? Since they are so similar already, it would be a
huge advantage if they could be made interchangeable.

For instance I have done some work on hawt.io plugins. A typical scenario
for a plugin is to set up one or more chained requests for read/write/exec
on an MBean, and have a callback process the response. If the payloads were
compatible, the road to support this new backend might not be too
difficult. That would give this new initiative a real boost over
traditional JMX connections.
Otherwise one would have to impose an additional layer of complexity to
bridge the difference.

I suppose you know these tools very well already. There is by the way a
presentation on JMX, Jolokia and hawt.io at JavaZone in a weeks time, and
the recording is usually made available just a few hours later:
https://2017.javazone.no/program/bbe08ad550174e16abd954733e018590

Best regards

Martin

ons. 6. sep. 2017 kl. 08:47 skrev Harsha Wardhana B <
harsha.wardhan...@oracle.com>:

> Hi Martin,
>
> In my opinion, the interfaces exposed by current JEP are lot closer to
> REST style than the interfaces exposed by Jolokia.
>
> For instance, HTTP GET by default should be used to read resources, but it
> is made part of URL in Jolokia interfaces.
>
> /read///
>
>
> I would wait on opinions from more people before considering changing the
> current interfaces.
>
> Thanks
>
> -Harsha
>
>
> On Wednesday 06 September 2017 11:40 AM, Martin Skarsaune wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> Would one at least consider adopting the same URL paths and payloads as
> Jolokia? This could make life a lot easier for third party tools that
> connect to it.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Martin Skarsaune
>
> ons. 6. sep. 2017 kl. 07:04 skrev Harsha Wardhana B <
> harsha.wardhan...@oracle.com>:
>
>> Hi Kirk,
>>
>> Yes. Jolokia was considered and is listed as an alternative in the JEP.
>>
>>
>>- Jolokia can serve as a viable alternative but can be bulky. We are
>>looking for simple and lightweight solution.
>>
>>
>> -Harsha
>>
>> On Wednesday 06 September 2017 10:21 AM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Have you run into this project? https://jolokia.org. Unfortunately it’s not 
>> exactly a drop in replacement for the standard RMI based JMX connector but 
>> it’s not far off.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Kirk
>>
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Erik Gahlin  
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Harsha,
>>
>> Looping in jmx-dev.
>>
>>
>> byte[], short[], int[], float[], double[]
>>
>> Should long[] be included there as well?
>>
>>
>> The REST adapter will come with a simple and lightweight JSON parser.
>>
>> Is this an internal parser or will it be exposed as an API?
>>
>> If so, how does it relate to JEP 198: Light-Weight JSON 
>> API?http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/198
>>
>> Will com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer be used to serve the requests?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Erik
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Please review the JEP for REST APIs for JMX :
>>https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171311
>>
>> The JEP aims at providing RESTful web interfaces to MBeans.
>>
>> Access to MBeans registered in a MBeanServer running inside a JVM requires a 
>> Java client. Language-agnostic access to MBeans will require spawning a Java 
>> client which can be cumbersome. The proposed JEP allows MBeans to be 
>> accessed in a language/platform-independent, ubiquitous and seamless manner.
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Harsha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Harsha Wardhana B]

Hi Martin,

In my opinion, the interfaces exposed by current JEP are lot closer to 
REST style than the interfaces exposed by Jolokia.


For instance, HTTP GET by default should be used to read resources, but 
it is made part of URL in Jolokia interfaces.


/read///


I would wait on opinions from more people before considering changing 
the current interfaces.


Thanks
-Harsha

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 11:40 AM, Martin Skarsaune wrote:

Hello

Would one at least consider adopting the same URL paths and payloads 
as Jolokia? This could make life a lot easier for third party tools 
that connect to it.


Best Regards

Martin Skarsaune

ons. 6. sep. 2017 kl. 07:04 skrev Harsha Wardhana B 
>:


Hi Kirk,

Yes. Jolokia was considered and is listed as an alternative in the
JEP.

  * Jolokia can serve as a viable alternative but can be bulky. We
are looking for simple and lightweight solution.


-Harsha

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 10:21 AM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:

Hi,

Have you run into this project?https://jolokia.org. Unfortunately it’s not 
exactly a drop in replacement for the standard RMI based JMX connector but it’s 
not far off.

Kind regards,
Kirk


On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Erik Gahlin 
  wrote:

Hi Harsha,

Looping in jmx-dev.


byte[], short[], int[], float[], double[]

Should long[] be included there as well?


The REST adapter will come with a simple and lightweight JSON parser.

Is this an internal parser or will it be exposed as an API?

If so, how does it relate to JEP 198: Light-Weight JSON API?
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/198

Will com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer be used to serve the requests?

Thanks
Erik


Hi All,

Please review the JEP for REST APIs for JMX :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171311

The JEP aims at providing RESTful web interfaces to MBeans.

Access to MBeans registered in a MBeanServer running inside a JVM requires 
a Java client. Language-agnostic access to MBeans will require spawning a Java 
client which can be cumbersome. The proposed JEP allows MBeans to be accessed 
in a language/platform-independent, ubiquitous and seamless manner.

Thanks
-Harsha

Re: JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Kirk Pepperdine]

Hi Harsha,

I wouldn’t consider Jolokia to be an alternative because as I suggested, it’s 
not a complete JMXConnector implementation and as such cannot be used with 
standard JMX clients such as the MBean viewer in JMC or VisualVM. In my 
opinion, it would be super if the product of the JEP could work as a drop-in 
replacement for the RMI-JMXConnctor that all standard JMX tooling currently 
uses.

Kind regards,
Kirk

> On Sep 6, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Harsha Wardhana B  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Kirk,
> 
> Yes. Jolokia was considered and is listed as an alternative in the JEP.
> 
> Jolokia can serve as a viable alternative but can be bulky. We are looking 
> for simple and lightweight solution.
> 
> -Harsha
> 
> On Wednesday 06 September 2017 10:21 AM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Have you run into this project? https://jolokia.org . 
>> Unfortunately it’s not exactly a drop in replacement for the standard RMI 
>> based JMX connector but it’s not far off.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Kirk
>> 
>>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Erik Gahlin  
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Harsha,
>>> 
>>> Looping in jmx-dev.
>>> 
 byte[], short[], int[], float[], double[]
>>> Should long[] be included there as well?
>>> 
 The REST adapter will come with a simple and lightweight JSON parser.
>>> Is this an internal parser or will it be exposed as an API?
>>> 
>>> If so, how does it relate to JEP 198: Light-Weight JSON API?
>>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/198 
>>> 
>>> Will com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer be used to serve the requests?
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Erik
>>> 
 Hi All,
 
 Please review the JEP for REST APIs for JMX :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171311 
 
 
 The JEP aims at providing RESTful web interfaces to MBeans.
 
 Access to MBeans registered in a MBeanServer running inside a JVM requires 
 a Java client. Language-agnostic access to MBeans will require spawning a 
 Java client which can be cumbersome. The proposed JEP allows MBeans to be 
 accessed in a language/platform-independent, ubiquitous and seamless 
 manner.
 
 Thanks
 -Harsha
 
 
> 

Re: JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Harsha Wardhana B]

Hi Kirk,

Yes. Jolokia was considered and is listed as an alternative in the JEP.

 * Jolokia can serve as a viable alternative but can be bulky. We are
   looking for simple and lightweight solution.


-Harsha

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 10:21 AM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:

Hi,

Have you run into this project? https://jolokia.org. Unfortunately it’s not 
exactly a drop in replacement for the standard RMI based JMX connector but it’s 
not far off.

Kind regards,
Kirk


On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Erik Gahlin  wrote:

Hi Harsha,

Looping in jmx-dev.


byte[], short[], int[], float[], double[]

Should long[] be included there as well?


The REST adapter will come with a simple and lightweight JSON parser.

Is this an internal parser or will it be exposed as an API?

If so, how does it relate to JEP 198: Light-Weight JSON API?
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/198

Will com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer be used to serve the requests?

Thanks
Erik


Hi All,

Please review the JEP for REST APIs for JMX :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171311

The JEP aims at providing RESTful web interfaces to MBeans.

Access to MBeans registered in a MBeanServer running inside a JVM requires a 
Java client. Language-agnostic access to MBeans will require spawning a Java 
client which can be cumbersome. The proposed JEP allows MBeans to be accessed 
in a language/platform-independent, ubiquitous and seamless manner.

Thanks
-Harsha

Re: JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Kirk Pepperdine]

Hi,

Have you run into this project? https://jolokia.org. Unfortunately it’s not 
exactly a drop in replacement for the standard RMI based JMX connector but it’s 
not far off.

Kind regards,
Kirk

> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Erik Gahlin  wrote:
> 
> Hi Harsha,
> 
> Looping in jmx-dev.
> 
> > byte[], short[], int[], float[], double[]
> 
> Should long[] be included there as well?
> 
> > The REST adapter will come with a simple and lightweight JSON parser.
> 
> Is this an internal parser or will it be exposed as an API?
> 
> If so, how does it relate to JEP 198: Light-Weight JSON API?
> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/198
> 
> Will com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer be used to serve the requests?
> 
> Thanks
> Erik
> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Please review the JEP for REST APIs for JMX :
>>https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171311
>> 
>> The JEP aims at providing RESTful web interfaces to MBeans.
>> 
>> Access to MBeans registered in a MBeanServer running inside a JVM requires a 
>> Java client. Language-agnostic access to MBeans will require spawning a Java 
>> client which can be cumbersome. The proposed JEP allows MBeans to be 
>> accessed in a language/platform-independent, ubiquitous and seamless manner.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> -Harsha
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: jmx-dev JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Harsha Wardhana B]

Hi Erik,


On Tuesday 05 September 2017 10:00 PM, Erik Gahlin wrote:

Hi Harsha,

Looping in jmx-dev.

> byte[], short[], int[], float[], double[]

Should long[] be included there as well?

Yes. Thanks.


> The REST adapter will come with a simple and lightweight JSON parser.

Is this an internal parser or will it be exposed as an API?

It is an internal parser.


If so, how does it relate to JEP 198: Light-Weight JSON API?
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/198

It is written from scratch using JavaCC and is not related to above JEP.


Will com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer be used to serve the requests?

Yes.



Thanks
Erik


Hi All,

Please review the JEP for REST APIs for JMX :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171311

The JEP aims at providing RESTful web interfaces to MBeans.

Access to MBeans registered in a MBeanServer running inside a JVM 
requires a Java client. Language-agnostic access to MBeans will 
require spawning a Java client which can be cumbersome. The proposed 
JEP allows MBeans to be accessed in a language/platform-independent, 
ubiquitous and seamless manner.


Thanks
-Harsha





- Harsha

Re: JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Erik Gahlin]

Hi Harsha,

Looping in jmx-dev.

> byte[], short[], int[], float[], double[]

Should long[] be included there as well?

> The REST adapter will come with a simple and lightweight JSON parser.

Is this an internal parser or will it be exposed as an API?

If so, how does it relate to JEP 198: Light-Weight JSON API?
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/198

Will com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer be used to serve the requests?

Thanks
Erik


Hi All,

Please review the JEP for REST APIs for JMX :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171311

The JEP aims at providing RESTful web interfaces to MBeans.

Access to MBeans registered in a MBeanServer running inside a JVM 
requires a Java client. Language-agnostic access to MBeans will 
require spawning a Java client which can be cumbersome. The proposed 
JEP allows MBeans to be accessed in a language/platform-independent, 
ubiquitous and seamless manner.


Thanks
-Harsha

JEP review : JDK-8171311 - REST APIs for JMX

[Harsha Wardhana B]

Hi All,

Please review the JEP for REST APIs for JMX :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171311

The JEP aims at providing RESTful web interfaces to MBeans.

Access to MBeans registered in a MBeanServer running inside a JVM 
requires a Java client. Language-agnostic access to MBeans will require 
spawning a Java client which can be cumbersome. The proposed JEP allows 
MBeans to be accessed in a language/platform-independent, ubiquitous and 
seamless manner.


Thanks
-Harsha