cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gianugo Rabellino <>
Subject Re: Instrumentation, anyone?
Date Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:11:14 GMT
Hamilton Verissimo de Oliveira (Engenharia - SPO) wrote:

>>I'm no JMX expert at all, but I understand that basic JMX support can be 
>>easily "piggybacked" on existing code, as long as you're basically happy 
>>with monitoring and small management tasks: more important needs might 
>>require significant changes to the code base, so if I were to draw a 
>>plan I would say that we _might_ include some JMX code right now and 
>>that we _should_ plan JMX support for 2.2, even if that requires some 
>>refactoring. I have the feeling that a complex application like Cocoon 
>>really could use some management tools.
> I feel your pain. Why don't you take a different direction using AOP
> (avoiding tangling) or even XDoclet to generate the required MBean
> interfaces? (I'm completly ignorant about the license of these tools, I'm
> just want to point that maybe put this support directly in the Cocoon code
> by now couldn't be a good idea.. maybe)

You have a point indeed. While AOP could be a bit too much for the 
current codebase, the XDoclet approach might make a lot of sense since 
MBeans could be built automagically at compile time. A nasty issue, 
actually, could be that some of the most interesting manageable stuff 
isn't really under Cocoon control since it belongs to Excalibur, but I 
feel that if we could come out with a decent XDoclet based JMX 
implementation even Excalibur would be happy to include it.


Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. -
Orixo, the XML business alliance -
     (Blogging at:

View raw message