avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Leo Simons" <m...@leosimons.com>
Subject RE: MBeanComponentManager ???
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:30:16 GMT
> At 11:11 PM 6/12/01 -0600, Mircea Toma wrote:
> >The ComponentManager will use internally a MBeanServer to lookup MBean-s
> >using role names which in this case will be the MBean's object
> name. Also it
> >uses the MBeanServer to manage Component/MBean lifecycle by calling
> >mBeanServer.isInstaceOf(...) in order to learn what to do with it.

I'm all for filling gaps in Java specs, but this sounds like a
'modification'
which is probably not something we should do here at Apache. But that's not
my primary concern.

Conceptually, the MBeanServer is there to expose a management interface
to humans / console apps / cronjobs / init scripts / whatever. the JMX
impl(s) are written to support this. When you use an MBeanSever as the
component manager, you loose inversion of control (probably), security
(very likely) and what you will get is a lot of overhead for unused
functionality.
The ComponentManager needs to be speedy, JMX isn't (doesn't have to be).

I think that what should be exposed for management (by phoenix) are
ServerApplications. Finer graining is inappropriate here. And of course,
life cycle management for those could be handled with a MBeanServer
(something we've talked about but have yet to decide on).

Finally, making the assumption {MBean object name} == {role name} may
cause problems in some apps; it probably violates some framework contract.

I may be wrong about this tho =)

cheers,

Leo


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message