Kedar Mhaswade wrote:
>
>
> Ludovic Champenois wrote:
>> Kedar Mhaswade wrote:
>>> OK, I built V3 and then started the domain fine. I see that
>>> Grizzly comes up fine at port 8080. Then I deploy a war file like:
>>>
>>> "asadmin deploy --port 8080 foo.war", which successfully deploys.
>>>
>>> So, does it mean that the administrative commands are handled by
>>> the Grizzly listener at 8080, where user applications are deployed?
>>>
>>> Is this by design, or we are in process of directing asadmin commands
>>> to a separate Grizzly listener (usually at 4848, like we do for V2)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Dazed and Confused in Santa Clara :)
>> Why?
>> The admin area work needs to start on V3:). Welcome aboard.
>> For now, 1 single port is the easy workaround (and as a developer, I
>> don't mind simple things in the current prototype/implementation: no
>> need to understand username/password or master password in the current
>> V3).
>> Ludo
>
> It's just that it is not mentioned anywhere. I don't disagree with the
> intent,
> but it has to be made explicit. Sorry, I am not used to doing things in
> ad hoc manner.
>
> Having no user name and password (master password is not used in this
> case at
> all, FYI) is OK in certain cases, but not all.
>
> Also, the domain.xml has the lines
> <http-listener id="admin-listener" address="0.0.0.0" port="4848"
> acceptor-threads="1" security-enabled="false"
> default-virtual-server="__asadmin" server-name="" xpowered-by="true"
> enabled="true" family="inet" blocking-enabled="false"/>
>
>
> What are they for?
> What's the use of __asadmin virtual server? Why is it there in
> domain.xml by
> default when it is not used.
>
> Sorry Ludo, this needs to be thought through.
Maybe you should just assume it's not yet implemented and finish it.
Well, ok, "assume" is the wrong word. After checking with Jerome to
confirm that it's simply a case of that functionality having not been
implemented yet, go ahead and finish it.