cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Giacomo Pati <>
Subject Re: JMX integration
Date Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:11:33 GMT
Hash: SHA1

Hehe, there is someone who is intrested in JMX.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:01:46 +0100
> From: Carsten Ziegeler <>
> Reply-To:
> To:
> Subject: Re: JMX integration
> Giacomo Pati wrote:
>> I now do have a working implementation for JMX with the least impact (by
>> added dependencies) to the core (so far only the
>> interfaces). The discovery approach is simply looking whether there is a
>> class which has the MBean suffix to the FQCN of the Component target for
>> Management. This means you'll have to write your MBeans by hand (yes
>> there are helper base classes available somewhere else and I will write
>> about this below). The code I've written checks whether there is a
>> MBeanServer available in the JVM and only adds JMX discovery support if
>> there is one (doesn't create an MBeanServer on it's own so far like
>> Commons-Modeler does).
> Awesome. Sounds great. One of my goals for 2.2 was to add JMX support to
> Cocoon, but I never really got time for it.

Now I got it but needed some advice concerning the dependencies.


>> The question I'd like to discuss is whether we wan't add a supporting
>> package (Commons-Modeler or jetty/mortbay's ModelMBeanImpl) or should we
>> just stay with the support to add MBeans (how ever those are implemented
>> is up to the user) to a possibly running MBeanServer in the JVM?
> Hmm actually I don't care that much if we add another dependency. I
> rewrote the core of Cocoon and added ECM++ for being able to add JMX

Yes, thanks. It was pretty easy to apply the JMX support in 2.2 whereas 
in 2.1 it is only possible that one can write JMX aware components under 
mentioned circumstances (ThreadSafe and Component).

> support somehow. Now, it thing depending on commons-modeler is a little
> bit "easier" as it's an Apache project - if there is something wrong for
> us we can fix it more easily. But apart from that, I think I just trust
> your decision which of the two is better suited for us.

Well, commons-modeler don't has the JMX interfaces and thus 
another dependency on mx4j-jmx is needed as that jar is redistributable 
(whereas the one from sun is not IIRC).

Comparing jetty's jmx helper calsses to the commons-modeler I see 
benefits for jetty's as that package supports MBean arrays whereas 
commons-modeler only supports primitive arrays. MBean array would make 
it possible to make array components implementing the same interface 
(ServiceSelector) directly registrable as MBean (for those which 
implements an MBean interface).

> So, big +1 for adding JMX support to 2.2 :)

And what about 2.1?



- -- 
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland -
Orixo, the XML business alliance -
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)


View raw message