Ken Cavanaugh wrote:
>
> 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.
Yes. Rajiv and I are working on it and we should file it before this
Friday :-)
Thanks!
-- Jeanfrancois
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>