Re: [Openjmx-devel] New RMI Adaptors architecture

[Carlos Q. <car...@we...>]

On Tuesday 12 February 2002 19:29, Bordet, Simone wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> so I have just finished the RMI adaptors, and found a better architecture
> to implement them.
>
> Current one is:
>
> RMIConnector --> network --> RMIProtocolAdaptor --> MBeanServer
>
> where RMIAdaptor sits on top of the RMIProtocolAdaptor to give
> manageability to it.
>
> New one will be:
>
> RMIConnector --> network --> RMIProtocolAdaptor --> Interceptor 1 -->
> Interceptor 2 --> ... --> Interceptor n --> MBeanServer
>
> Every interceptor is an MBean and it's registered along with the RMIAdaptor
> MBean. It is possible to enable/disable the interceptors, and every
> interceptor can perform operations based on the informations it has. For
> example one can write an interceptor that uses JAAS to allow or not certain
> users to perform some operations, or not use JAAS and do the same kind of
> checks. Or another interceptor that will record different users, or one
> that records the hit per second of the interceptors, and so on.
This sounds very interesting, and we could actually use it for the HTTP 
Adaptor as well. I guess we'll be providing some interceptors with openjmx. I 
can imagine an interceptor which knows of other MBean Agents in the network 
and can communicate with them. Somehting like

RMIConnector --> network --> RMIProtocolAdaptor --> Interceptor 1 -->
Interceptor 2 --> RMIConnection --> network --> Interceptor n --> MBeanServer 
(in another node)

I say, go for it

>
> I've already done 90% of the new architecture and seems to work well.
>
> It will have much more dynamicity, manageability, and it is easily
> extendible by a user that wants custom interceptors.
>
> I think I will replace the old architecture with this new one, keeping all
> the good features of the previous (IIOP, SSL, remote listeners, etc). The
> new architecture only affects the management part, and slightly the
> implementation. For example for users is transparent: the usage is the same
> I don't have even to change the documentation :)
>
> Opinions are welcome
>
> Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openjmx-devel mailing list
> Ope...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel