On Feb 27, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Kedar Mhaswade wrote:
>
>> If so, we may want to
>>> consider
>>> adding IIOP to the protocols handled for port unification, now
>>> that we have the
>>> ORB running on Grizzly.
>> Right that will be quite simple to do.
> Seriously, this is a great feature. If we have
> fewer ports that administrator needs to manage, it is much
> better. We need to finalize on this pretty soon. Currently,
> we have: 2 HTTP ports, 1 HTTPS port, 3 IIOP ports, 1 JMS
> port and 1 JMX/RMI port in a domain, by default. Of course, with
> V3 we are not going to start all of those by default, but if
> we can apply port unification, it will be useful.
>
>
Should someone create an overall PRD item for port unification
in GFv3? I think it would be useful for tracking what will and won't
be unified in the first GFv3 release, and also allow everyone to create
any necessary dependent PRD items.
Thanks,
Ken.