avalon-phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: JMX Integration
Date Mon, 02 Sep 2002 13:10:08 GMT

Peter Donald wrote:

>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:45, Huw Roberts wrote:
>>>>Rather than this I think I may prefer something simpler - at least
>>>>initially. Something like
>>>>BlockContext.register( String topic, String name, Object object )
>>>>BlockContext.unregister( String topic, String name )
>>>>Job jobOne = ... get the job somehow
>>>>ctx.register( "jobs", jobOne.getName(), jobOne );
>>>>ctx.unregister( "jobs", jobOne.getName() );
>>>>The reason for this is that then we don't have to expose SystemManager
>>>>to clients and thus we are free to evolve it as we see fit. However it
>>>>exposes all the information needed to manage object.
>>I have 3 issues:
>>1) The ability to add more than one level of hierarchy beneath the blocks.
>>2) Using an interface will make the client code cleaner and more portable.
>>3) Client code will be hooking into this, meaning we are committed to
>>supporting it going forward.
>>I can live with this for now, but i want to consider how it fits into
>>the longer term direction.  What I'd like to do, is add a
>>ManagementContext interface to Framework, and then have SystemManager
>>extend this.  That would be the first step towards making the
>>functionality available in other containers.  Does that sound ok?  If
>>so, how do we proceed in that direction?  If its not too big a deal
>>maybe we could skip this intermediate step?
>I would still prefer to go with the
>BlockContext.register( String topic, String name, Object object )
>BlockContext.unregister( String topic, String name )

>The reason is that we have discussed that feature in the past without really 
>coming to any conclusion. 

Adding behaviour to an context implementation over and above the 
framework defintion of context means that you are defining a 
specilization of the Avalon Component Model for Phoenix.  Components 
that include a dependency on that model are no longer portable. 
Alternative solutions to introducing the functionality you are 
describing is totally possible without introducing the complication 
associated with BlockContext - i..e. use the context object to aquire an 
abject implementing the interface the component needs, then apply 
register/unregister against that interface, or, havbe the copmponent 
declare a depedency on a registery service of some kind.

This was discussed in respect to the shutdown request handler - this 
requirement is no different.

Cheers, Steve.


Stephen J. McConnell

digital products for a global economy

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

View raw message