> -----Original Message-----
> From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 9:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [POLL] Tomcat 3.3.2 updates
>
>
> Larry Isaacs wrote:
>
>
> > A first pass implementation, derived from what you have
> > done, can be found here:
> >
> > <http://jakarta.apache.org/~larryi/JmxSupport.war>
>
> Great !
>
> However, I remain to the opinion that JMX is a fundamental
> API that should be available to all applications, and it
> should provide it's own (trusted) security.
>
> If anything, we should try to 'hack' mx4j to provide app
> isolation or fix whatever is broken.
Most of the time I have spent playing with JMX occurred
in the last couple of days. So that I don't misunderstand,
can you elaborate what you mean by "isolation". Are you
referring to some kind of username, and maybe rolls, that
somehow control what you can and can't see on the Mbean
server?
>
> Think about it - each app can expose config and status
> data to the mx layer, and the config app ( or another
> tool ) can manage not only tomcat, but also each webapp.
> JMX is not restricted to server code, it can ( and should)
> be used in user apps as well. And that's where things
> will be intersting.
For now, we could continue to include the JMX jars in
lib/container and update LoaderInterceptor11 to have
"jmx", "jmxDir", and "jmxJars" attributes which work
like the JAXP handling. Do you see doing more than
this at this point?
Cheers,
Larry
>
> Costin
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
