RE: [Openjmx-users] can't see the jmx forest for the trees

[Bordet, S. <Sim...@co...>]

Hi,

> Simone Bordet says:
> > All implement the JMX specification, v 1.0, and offer some=20
> more extra feature.
>=20
> Does someone have a summary of what each of JDMX, OpenJMX,=20
> and JBossMX offer
> beyond the core JMX?

You can look at the OpenJMX documentation online =
(http://openjmx.sourceforge.net/docs/index.html) which features are =
present in OpenJMX; for other project you should look at their =
documentation.

> Would it be fair to say that the main thing today that=20
> OpenJMX offers beyond
> the free (beer) jmx reference implementation is the html adaptor?

Nooo, not at all.

First of all you get a JMX implementation almost free of bug.
Second you get a better HTTP Adaptor, since OpenJMX's is customizable =
via XSLT. Furthermore OpenJMX HTTPAdaptor works over SSL.
Third you get the complete series of RMIAdaptors: RMI over JRMP, RMI =
over JRMP over SSL, RMI over IIOP.
Fourth you get a faster implementation.
Fifth you get several utility MBeans, such as the Naming and the new =
Jython one, and the StandardMBeanProxy for easy invocation.
Sixth you get some extension such as logging redirection and pluggable =
persistence.
Etc etc.

Most of all, you get the source and you get the community support.

So, no, it's not fair what you said :)

> > > 3. Now suppose I'd like to manage those instrumented=20
> beans using SNMP.
> > > It appears JDMK does that; I don't know what else does.
> >=20
> > Not OpenJMX (yet) nor JBossMX (afaik).
>=20
> Are there any near term plans for SNMP?

No. But we are open to any contribution.

> As it stands today, JMX has limited appeal to me, because it=20
> seems to be only
> manageable using proprietary commercial management solutions.
> Web-management is fine for humans, but if that is all I get,=20
> it would be easier
> for me to supply that through other means.

For example ?

Bear in mind that JMX is not the HTTPAdaptor.
JMX is a standard for server-side applications. It defines a standard =
way to create server-side apps, and you get for free manageability.

I personally developed and deployed several projects based on JMX, and =
the nicer feature according to customers is web management, so yes, a =
management application based on Swing is still missing, but IMHO this =
lack will be filled very soon.

> If I had some hope that there would be free snmp support for=20
> JMX this year, I'd be more eager.

Why ?

Simon


> I think that snmp support would mean a snmp AgentX sub-agent=20
> protocol wrapper
> for MBeans. Hopefully that would work with or without java=20
> code generation, which
> may or may not be desirable.
>=20
> -mda
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Openjmx-users mailing list
> Ope...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-users
>=20