Jerome Dochez wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2008, at 8:44 AM, 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?
> so far they were not used. but lucky you I fixed all that in the last
> few days since we finally have the web container working for simple
> apps. I will check it in in a matter of minutes now
>
> so now we open all kinds of ports like we did in v2, the __asadmin is
> available on all of them.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
> true and not true. it needs to be thought through but you need to
> understand that things can be in a state now that does not reflect where
> it will eventually end up. We cannot necessarily have all the solutions
> implemented completely immediately... This is why you saw that behaviour.
>
Again, I am trying to understand if this is decided. Like I previously said,
it is possible that for TP-2 we decided to merge the traffic for admin and
users. It just is not clear to me. I am asking what had been decided.
> jerome
>
>> - Kedar
>>
>>>>
>>>> - Kedar
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>