Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 21467 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2001 20:31:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Reply-To: "Avalon Development" Delivered-To: mailing list avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 21345 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 20:31:10 -0000 X-Sent: 13 Jun 2001 20:30:29 GMT From: "Leo Simons" To: "Avalon Development" Subject: RE: MBeanComponentManager ??? Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:30:16 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010613182842.008198c0@mail.alphalink.com.au> X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N > 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