Client-server JKstat

One of the things I've wanted to add to JKstat for a while is some sort of client-server capability: the ability to run a server process on a machine and connect to it from a remote client which runs the GUI.

This separation of responsibility can offload the graphical processing associated with displaying the output off the server onto your desktop device. And that desktop device need not be running Solaris. Although I haven't tested it myself, there's no reason why you can't now run the client on - say - Windows.

So, how do you make this work? Having downloaded the latest (0.26) version of JKstat, unpack it, and on the server machine you wish to monitor:

./jkstat server -p 7367

where you can choose a port number, and on the client machine where you want the kstat browser to run

./jkstat remotebrowser -s http://server_name:7367/

so it knows where to look for the server.

The current implementation is very much an experimental proof of concept. There's no access control implemented at present, for example. And the way it operates is bound to change.

At the moment, it's using Apache XML-RPC. I like XML-RPC because it's very simple to use, pretty fast, and lightweight. There are also - in principle - implementations for other languages so you don't have to use Java.

And the Apache XML-RPC implementation can either be standalone (that's the way I'm using it right now) or embedded in a servlet container. The latter would allow you to put pretty well any access control mechanism you like in place.

I'm not particularly fixated about either XML-RPC or this specific implementation, though. This was chosen first because I've used it before and know it's so easy to implement - allowing me to concentrate on the JKstat specific part and seeing how well (or badly) client-server works at all before investing a lot of effort.

In practice, XML-RPC is a pretty good match. It implements Lists (or arrays) and Maps (or hashes) as native constructs. I don't need any more complex data structures. The weakness is that while all I need to pass in those structures are Strings and Long values, the latter requires Vendor extensions, which I've had to turn on, breaking the portability aspect.