RE: RMIJRMPServerImpl

Hi, 

> We have a problem related to the
> javax.management.remote.rmi.RMIJRMPServerImpl class when 
> creating a JSR 160 JMXConnectorServer in the JOnAS application server.
> 
> This problem only occures in a particular configuration case 
> - when trying to start a JOnAS server which does not start 
> its own registry service, but uses (shares) the registry 
> service of a previously started JOnAS server.
> In this situation, when using *JRMP* protocol, the
> RMIConnectorServer.start() fails, as the
> RMIJRMPServerImpl.export() fails with a 
> "java.net.BindException: Address already in use" exception.
> However, in the same situation, when using *IIOP* protocol, 
> everything goes well.

This is strange: Address already in use is not something that should happen.
Can you please add details of the JMXServiceURLs you use, and of the addresses/ports of the JOnAS servers ?

> When comparing the 2 implementations of RMIConnectorServer 
> (RMIJRMPServerImpl and RMIIIOPServerImpl), we can see that 
> the main difference consists in using UnicastRemoteObject in 
> the JRMP case, and PortableRemoteObject in the IIOP case.

Yes.

> For us (in JOnAS), PortableRemoteObject is perfect as when 
> executing the exportObject() method,
> the proDelegate is checked, and in case its not null, then the
> exportObject() is called on the proDelegate object. This is 
> not the case with UnicastRemoteObject. Delegating the 
> exportObject to proDelegate permits passing towards the JOnAS 
> registry service, which is the desired behaviour for us.

Not following. I have always thought there is a delegate only when using IIOP.
Otherwise, how can you tell PRO to export() over JRMP (the MX4J jars contains the stub for both JRMP and IIOP) ?

> So, my question is why this difference between the 2 
> implementation classes ?
> And second, do you think it should be possible to use 
> PortableRemoteObject in the RMIJRMPServerImpl class, instead 
> of UnicastRemoteObject ?

At my knowledge, no if not removing the IIOP stubs from MX4J jars (which I don't think is a viable solution).

Let me know,

Simon


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl