You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by Ahmed Mohombe <am...@yahoo.com> on 2007/07/04 18:40:57 UTC
JMX, trunk and experiments!
Hi,
The trunk is default configured now (for the experiments only I suppose) with IMAP, and DB as
storage. This is great as users just need to build it and try right away the new functionality.
It would be however great if the JMX management would be also activated by default in trunk (like
the above).
It seems that configuring the JMX (to work) is not that easy (since very few users manage to do it
and there are also no docs), so IMHO if it would work out of the box (like the above) many more
would give it a try and also feedback about it.
Thanks in advance,
Ahmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: JMX, trunk and experiments!
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <bf...@brainlounge.de>.
Ahmed Mohombe wrote:
>> While IMAP does define sufficient defaults (mostly the port) JMX has
>> many configuration options (built-in JMX server vs. third party,
>> authentication vs. no authenticaion, credentials, IP-bindings, ports,
>> protocols...).
> You are the developers of JAMES so you *can* define JMX defaults too (in
> the context of JAMES), that you consider are a "best practice" or are
> better suited for your users.
"Best practice" is better defined by the users of JAMES.
What configuration would you like?
>> Do you see any reasonable defaults?
> Yes, I do: the configuration that requires the smallest work amount from
> the user.
> Also don't forget that this is for "experiments" and that you want users
> to give it a try (and not get scared by the impossibility to get it work).
>
> So a minimal setup with JDK 1.5 JConsole and the JDK JMX server will
> just do it as long as it "just works out of the box", and there's a
> short description that describes *just* the steps needed to make it work.
You are more than welcome to provide a patch. I will look into it promptly.
The tricky part, as Stefano mentioned, is that we have to adjust
kernel.xml. Having this working "out of the box" without breakages in
JDK 1.4 or other scenarios seems to require some work.
In a Spring Framework deployment this probably becomes much easier,
since Spring supports JMX better than Phoenix. That would be my personal
priority to work on at the moment.
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Ahmed.
Thank you,
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: JMX, trunk and experiments!
Posted by Ahmed Mohombe <am...@yahoo.com>.
> While IMAP does define sufficient defaults (mostly the port) JMX has
> many configuration options (built-in JMX server vs. third party,
> authentication vs. no authenticaion, credentials, IP-bindings, ports,
> protocols...).
You are the developers of JAMES so you *can* define JMX defaults too (in the context of JAMES), that
you consider are a "best practice" or are better suited for your users.
> Do you see any reasonable defaults?
Yes, I do: the configuration that requires the smallest work amount from the user.
Also don't forget that this is for "experiments" and that you want users to give it a try (and not
get scared by the impossibility to get it work).
So a minimal setup with JDK 1.5 JConsole and the JDK JMX server will just do it as long as it "just
works out of the box", and there's a short description that describes *just* the steps needed to
make it work.
Thanks in advance,
Ahmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: JMX, trunk and experiments!
Posted by Ahmed Mohombe <am...@yahoo.com>.
> If I recall correctly, the problem with James under Java5 is that MX4J
> is not an option here, since Phoenix messes things up (classloader
> problems as far as I remember).
This is mentioned nowhere in the docs, and since Java 5 is common on most desktops these days,
this is also the version most users will use it to try JAMES with (at least when giving a try
to experimental features from the trunk).
> Built-in JMX server works as described. At least, I got it running.
> Can you please report what exactly is the problem you are running into?
Following that WIKI page one can connect with JConsole(or other tool) without problems to the VM
running JAMES and browse the tree with MBeans (JAMES MBeans are visible in that tree too, not just
the MBeans from the JDK).
The problems is that trying to do something useful aka managing (e.g. get the list of users, or
whatever functionality is possible now with the the telnet client) is not working throwing exceptions.
This is exactly what all users I know and and tried to connect to JAMES with JMX are getting.
Ahmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: JMX, trunk and experiments!
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <bf...@brainlounge.de>.
If I recall correctly, the problem with James under Java5 is that MX4J
is not an option here, since Phoenix messes things up (classloader
problems as far as I remember).
Built-in JMX server works as described. At least, I got it running.
Can you please report what exactly is the problem you are running into?
Bernd
Ahmed Mohombe wrote:
>> Bernd is the man for JMX on JAMES ;-) , btw if I remember correctly to
>> enable JMX you have to play with the phoenix's kernel.xml file, so it is
>> a bit different from other JAMES Server configurations.
>>
>> Here is an interesting guide by Bernd:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/james/ConfigureJmx
> Yes, I know that document, and all users that I know that have tried
> (but failed) to setup JMX with James used it. Unfortunately that
> document is not helping too much as I know *nobody* that has managed to
> make the JMX work in JAMES (with the JDK JMX implementation).
>
> Ahmed.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: JMX, trunk and experiments!
Posted by Ahmed Mohombe <am...@yahoo.com>.
> Bernd is the man for JMX on JAMES ;-) , btw if I remember correctly to
> enable JMX you have to play with the phoenix's kernel.xml file, so it is
> a bit different from other JAMES Server configurations.
>
> Here is an interesting guide by Bernd:
> http://wiki.apache.org/james/ConfigureJmx
Yes, I know that document, and all users that I know that have tried (but failed) to setup JMX with
James used it. Unfortunately that document is not helping too much as I know *nobody* that has
managed to make the JMX work in JAMES (with the JDK JMX implementation).
Ahmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: JMX, trunk and experiments!
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
robert burrell donkin ha scritto:
> On 7/4/07, Bernd Fondermann <bf...@brainlounge.de> wrote:
>> You are right. Configuring JMX is no fun.
>> While IMAP does define sufficient defaults (mostly the port) JMX has
>> many configuration options (built-in JMX server vs. third party,
>> authentication vs. no authenticaion, credentials, IP-bindings, ports,
>> protocols...). Do you see any reasonable defaults?
>
> i wonder whether we might be able to do something funky with named
> configurations. leave JMX off by default (for security reasons) but
> ship several named configurations which can be started through the
> remote manager.
Bernd is the man for JMX on JAMES ;-) , btw if I remember correctly to
enable JMX you have to play with the phoenix's kernel.xml file, so it is
a bit different from other JAMES Server configurations.
Here is an interesting guide by Bernd:
http://wiki.apache.org/james/ConfigureJmx
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: JMX, trunk and experiments!
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/4/07, Bernd Fondermann <bf...@brainlounge.de> wrote:
> You are right. Configuring JMX is no fun.
> While IMAP does define sufficient defaults (mostly the port) JMX has
> many configuration options (built-in JMX server vs. third party,
> authentication vs. no authenticaion, credentials, IP-bindings, ports,
> protocols...). Do you see any reasonable defaults?
i wonder whether we might be able to do something funky with named
configurations. leave JMX off by default (for security reasons) but
ship several named configurations which can be started through the
remote manager.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: JMX, trunk and experiments!
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <bf...@brainlounge.de>.
You are right. Configuring JMX is no fun.
While IMAP does define sufficient defaults (mostly the port) JMX has
many configuration options (built-in JMX server vs. third party,
authentication vs. no authenticaion, credentials, IP-bindings, ports,
protocols...). Do you see any reasonable defaults?
Bernd
Ahmed Mohombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The trunk is default configured now (for the experiments only I suppose)
> with IMAP, and DB as storage. This is great as users just need to build
> it and try right away the new functionality.
>
> It would be however great if the JMX management would be also activated
> by default in trunk (like the above).
> It seems that configuring the JMX (to work) is not that easy (since very
> few users manage to do it and there are also no docs), so IMHO if it
> would work out of the box (like the above) many more would give it a try
> and also feedback about it.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Ahmed.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org