cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Giacomo Pati <>
Subject RE: extended
Date Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:30:50 GMT
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Ard Schrijvers wrote:

> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:53:17 +0200
> From: Ard Schrijvers <>
> Reply-To:
> To:
> Subject: RE: extended
>>>> Ard Schrijvers escribió:
>>>>> We are using many continuations in our projects, implying
>>>> have load on memory use (apparantly continuations can be very
>>>> large in memory..?).
>>>>> Since in a deployed environment we want to have some idea
>>>> about the number of continuations out there, I have added
>>>> this to the StatusGenerator, in the same manner as for the
>>>> StoreJanitor is done.
>>>>> Also added to the "Memory" group is the max memory
>>>> available (Runtime.getRuntime().maxMemory())
>>>>> Can I send in a patch to have it standard in the StatusGenerator?
>>>> hi Ard,
>>>> It is a nice enhancement. I will like to see it in cocoon. ;-)
>>> Shall I send in a patch before trying to add status of any
>> database connection pools, or first try to add this one as well?
>> Wouldn't a JMX bean be of much more value?
> Yes it would be very nice to have, but does it not imply that all 
> interfaces should be adjusted to what they expose?

Well, normally you will have different interfaces for a MBeans 
(management) than for your components (system design/architecture) 
because the MBean interface reflects the manageability of a 
implementation whereas the component interface reflects a design aspect 
of a system part. As an example take the Store interface. For a 
DiskStore you'd probably have different manageability requirements than 
for a MemoryStore. But both implement the same design interface which 
has method you really don't want to see on a JMX-Console (i.e. 
store(key,value)) because they don't make much sense there.

There are tools to automatically create MBeans out of components but 
those I personally never had good results with them because of the 
reasons I explained above.

> Is it not a little out of scope at the moment?

What scope are you referring to?

> And does it not require java 1.5..?

No, JMX is available back to Java 1.3 IIRC (i.e. MX4J).

For 2.1.X I remember having made JMX support available but could find it 
anymore (just the jetty config in tools/jetty/conf/main-jmx.xml). Has it 
been removed?

For 2.2 with Spring you almost get JMX for free.

- -- 
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland -
Orixo, the XML business alliance -
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

  • Unnamed multipart/mixed (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message