Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 20640 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2002 21:35:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2002 21:35:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 4555 invoked by uid 97); 1 Mar 2002 21:35:48 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 4539 invoked by uid 97); 1 Mar 2002 21:35:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 4504 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2002 21:35:47 -0000 Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:39:08 -0500 From: David Jencks To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: Order of attributes versus elements Message-ID: <20020301163908.L1346@HP.home.home> References: <3C7F6970.6060009@cortexebusiness.com.au> <20020301083405.Q16079@HP.home.home> <00e201c1c14f$0afb40e0$b81c570f@cv.hp.com> <20020301145859.H1346@HP.home.home> <02e301c1c162$e17e2160$b81c570f@cv.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <02e301c1c162$e17e2160$b81c570f@cv.hp.com>; from steve_l@iseran.com on Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 15:51:35 -0500 X-Mailer: Balsa 1.1.6 Lines: 74 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 2002.03.01 15:51:35 -0500 Steve Loughran wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Jencks" > To: "Ant Developers List" > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 11:58 > Subject: Re: Order of attributes versus elements > > > > On 2002.03.01 13:29:34 -0500 Steve Loughran wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "David Jencks" > > > To: "Ant Developers List" > > > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 05:34 > > > Subject: Re: Order of attributes versus elements > > > > > > > > > > Just to be gratuitous, I'll repeat my assertion that a lot of > aspects > > > of > > > > ant might be simpler if it was built using jmx. > > > > > > what, like having to write an interface called ExecTaskMBean for > every > > > task > > > instead of using some kind of declarative metadata to describe what > > > methods > > > exported? JMX is like EJB1.0 in that respect. > > > > use model mbeans, not standard ones. See the xdoclet OpenJmx > descriptor > > generators and the (just starting) jboss mx xml descriptor generator. > If > > for some reason you like Standard MBeans, use xdoclet to generate the > > interface for you. > > I should look at this I think it's really cool. I didn't really understand model mbeans until I read about them in Juha Lindfor's new jmx book. > > > Plus the whole JMX registry > > > singleton model is messy; makes writing unit tests that much harder > > > > What do you mean by the singleton model? > > the way you have to register beans with the central place to make them > locatable, if all your server go through the same system to find stuff > then > you need to clean it out between unit tests, and it doesnt seem that easy > to > clean up unless you know what you added. > > But I welcome being proved wrong, if it simplifies my future work Maybe you are lacking a reasonable way of deploying mbeans... the mlet pseudo-xml notation sucks, and doing it in code is also kind of a non starter. I'm used to the jboss 3 model, which lets you deploy xml configuration chunks of any size at any time, and provides pretty good lifecycle and dependency management. Tests I write generally involve deploying an xml document with the configuration for the mbeans I'm working with, testing them, and finally undeploying the document. david jencks > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: