1 Reply Latest reply on Jul 26, 2012 8:51 AM by Aslak Knutsen

    jboss-as-arquillian-container-managed managementAddress and managementPort

    Simon Søndergaard Newbie



      I'm trying to understand the semantics of the managementAddress and managementPort configuration options in context of the managed container


      Here is  my understanding of how it currently works:


      The adapter reads its values from arquillian.xml or uses the default values of managementAddress = ""; managementPort = 9999;


      The container is started and reads its configurations from standalone.xml (or whatever jboss.server.config.file.name point to). Its management interface will listen to whatever is defined in that file. For standalone.xml default values are provide in the config file and they can be overwritten with jboss.bind.address.management and jboss.management.native.port (and jboss.socket.binding.port-offset...)


      The values use are currently completely unreleated, so for a noob like me that have written another value in on of the two files, will either see the deployment hang or deploy to a wrong instance...



      I was thinking it would be better if:


      1) The adapter derived its values from the container config file in use

      2) The adaper used jboss.bind.address.management and jboss.management.native.port set to the value specified in arquillian.xml


      so my two questions are as follows: Any good reason why we have the current behavour and if not, which of the two options (if any) would make most sense?




        • 1. Re: jboss-as-arquillian-container-managed managementAddress and managementPort
          Aslak Knutsen Master

          This will depend a bit on which Container Adapter type you're using, Managed vs Remote. Bu tyou are correct, there is a disconnect here.


          For the Remote adapter, we simly don't have access to the container configuration, so you'll need to tell the adapter where it should connect.


          As for the Managed adapter, both 1 and 2 are possible options. The question is more, who is in control.

          Arquillian is the one that starts the container, so it might be logical to look at 2.

          Unless you run against a predefined configuration(you possible have other code relying on the mgm ip/port), then 1 is a better option.