Re: sanity

Bordet, Simone wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> SNIP
> 
>>Too bad that mx4j doesn't implement the Generic Connector, because
>>most applications don't need dynamic discovery.  DNS manages to
>>provide the needed indirection for every http server on the www,
>>and it works just as well for Jmx.  If I have outside JMX clients for
>>my mx4j jmx service, in addition to not having portable encryption
>>support, I have to protect an otherwise unnecessary  JNDI service
>>and open it up through the firewalls.
> 
> 
> Listening on port 80 with the JMXMP connector ?

I was thinking that with the RMI approach, the Jmx connector client
needs access to both the JNDI port and the RMI port.  If that is not
so, then I withdraw this criticism of :rmi: (is ALL the traffic
routed through the JNDI port?).  What I was saying was,
if clients need to access both JNDI and RMI ports, then I have to
arrange for access and security of 2 tcp/ip pipes instead of 1.  I
wasn't suggesting running jmxmp on port 80.

-- 
Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.
ICF:  703-934-3692       Cell:  703-944-9317


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click