cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <sylv...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Instrumentation, anyone?
Date Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:08:38 GMT
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:

> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> Yes, JMX is imho the way to go, so a general +1. I don't have
>> much knowledge of JMX, but I would assistent and help in such
>> an effort whereever I can.
>>
>> The simple question is only, which version we would use as base,
>> I would suggest 2.2.
>
>
> It really depends on how far we are from 2.2. I don't want to sound 
> pessimistic, and I must confess that I'm the first one lagging behind 
> the Fortress migration, but I have an overall feeling that we are 
> still quite far away, and I think that we could use something ASAP.
>
> 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.


+1.

I once tried to understand the communication between the instrument 
manager and instrument client, but totally got lost in AltRMI stuff.

But the basing Instrument and InstrumentManager stuff seems quite 
simple, and maybe the quickest way towards JMX compliance is to consider 
the instruments as the MBeans. I don't have much JMX experience, though...

Sylvain

-- 
Sylvain Wallez                                  Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain           http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }


Mime
View raw message