lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Simon Willnauer" <simon.willna...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Extending Solr's Admin functionality
Date Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:07:01 GMT
First I agree with yonik, the main point is to define which classes /
parts / mbeans should be exposed to JMX is the hard part and should be
planned carefully. I could imagine a very flexible layer between jmx
and solr using 1.5 annotations and an integration of commons-modeler.

Erik, am I get you right that you want to connect to jmx via an extern
webapplication which acts as an admin interface (written in ruby or
whatever) or are you pointing to a http/XML connector for jmx?
JSR-160 permits extensions to the way in which communication is done
between the client and the server. Basic implementations are using the
mandatory RMI-based implementation required by the JSR-160
specification (IIOP and JRMP) and the (optional) JMXMP. By using other
providers or JMX implementations (such as MX4J) you can take advantage
of protocols like SOAP, Hessian, Burlap over simple HTTP or SSL and
others. (http://mx4j.sourceforge.net)

best regards simon



On 9/27/06, Erik Hatcher <erik@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> Ah, so I'm beginning to get it.  If we build Solr with JMX support,
> the admin HTTP/XML(err, Ruby) interface could be written into the JMX
> HTTP adapter as a separate web application, and allowing users to
> plug it in or not.  If I'm understanding that correctly then I'm
> quite +1 on JMX!  And I suppose some of these adapters already have
> built in web service interfaces.
>
>         Erik
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
>
> > @Otis: I suggest we go a bit more in detail about the features solr
> > should expose via JMX and talk about the contribution. I'd love to
> > extend solr with more JMX support.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/27/06, Yonik Seeley <yonik@apache.org> wrote:
> >> On 9/26/06, Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodnetic@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On the other hand, some people I talked to also expressed
> >> interest in JMX, so I'd encourage Simon to make that contribution.
> >>
> >> I'm also interested in JMX.
> >> It has different adapters, including an HTTP one AFAIK, but I don't
> >> know how easy it is to use.
> >
> > The application should only provide mbeans as an interface for the JMX
> > kernel to expose these interfaces to the adapter. Which adapter you
> > use depends on you personal preferences. There are lots of JMX Monitor
> > apps around with http adaptors like mx4j (http://mx4j.sourceforge.net)
> > if deployed in the same container all mbeans are exposed to the
> > connector via the mbean registry / server.
> >
> > @Yonik: What are you interests in JMX?
> >
> > best regards Simon
> >>
> >> -Yonik
> >>
>
>

Mime
View raw message