like i said, i do think that implementing JMX management is much easier and
faster to implement (if you understand the concept and know what to do, it
is a matter of minutes) than to write a custom text to invocation handler
which additionally needs to take care about telnet-specific things like
terminal handling.




2008/7/29, Wenrui Guo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Yeah. You are right. But the JMX support is a feature need to
> implemented in next phase. Right now, Telnet is enough.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Migowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 5:19 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Telnet Console
>
> Hi,
>
> i don't think there is a MINA telnet codec available. As you already
> noticed telnet is more then just network transport.
>
> But why do you want to manage your application through telnet? Isn't
> that a bit too complicated (assumed you haven't yet something which can
> parse text commands into the needed invocations).
> I would use JMX for that as it was designed for this purpose and there
> are much more sophisticated clients available than a command prompt.
> Have a look at
> http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/jmx/tutorial/tutorial
> TOC.html
> (especially
> http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/jmx/tutorial/connecto
> rs.html#wp5529
> for
> a real fast quickstart) and
> http://blogs.sun.com/jmxetc/entry/connecting_through_firewall_using_jmx.
>
> hth,
> best regards,
> christian!
>
>
>
> 2008/7/29, Wenrui Guo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > Hi, all
> >
> > I'd like to add telnet ability to my application, so that users can
> > log in the admin console to manage application, is there existing
> > protocol codec classes can be used to do that?
> > I tried TextLineCodecFactory, it seems it doesn't work well when using
>
> > telnet to access. For instance, after invoking session.write(">"), at
> > the side of telnet, cursor is not placed just next to prompt.
> > So, what's the candidate for codec factory?
> >
> > Br
> > anderson
> >
>

Reply via email to