RE: RE: [Mx4j-user] RE: mx4j-Bugs-969175: Security and delegation
"Bordet, Simone" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.mx4j.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, > You are right about the RMI argument. > Please consider the fact that a "JMX client" may very well be > a server too. > We would be happy to see real implementation of SASL JMXMP in > Reference Implementation and MX4J. That's the biggest problem I've found, and the main reason I did not even try to implement the JMXMP provider. AFAIK, the JDK ships only the SASL API (no SASL providers), and last time I checked the cryptix provider, it was full of bugs, even for plain authentication. And the news is that the cryptix provider at SF donated the code to the GNU project, with the license of course passing from BSD to GPL, thanks. So, first off we should implement SASL providers, and the RFC is far from easy to read... Unless someone volunteers, I'm going to pass on this provider. Simon ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idP47&alloc_id808&op=click