cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Willem Jiang <ning.ji...@iona.com>
Subject Re: Managing (JMX) Configuration/Policy Beans
Date Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:38:05 GMT
Hi  Dan,

If you want to export an Object instance to JMX , you need to tell the 
JMX Server that the MBean instance which attributes , actions and events 
will be exported to JMX( I call it management information model).
You can use two way to describe the management information meta date, 
the static way and the dynamical way.
The static way is using the *MBean interface to describe  management 
information,  JMX framework can use the reflection to generate this 
information.
The dynamical way is we can use the ModelMBeanInfo to hold the 
management information and set it with the managed object instance, then 
export this instance to JMX.

The management information can be described as xml , annotation or 
interface. Spring provides several MBeanInforAssembler  to help us to 
export Spring Bean as the MBean. Because we want to export CXF rt 
component which may not be the Spring Bean as the MBean, we use the same 
annotations as Spring in CXF management to describe the management 
information model, and we use the instrumentation class as the wrapper 
class to keep the rt code clean. 

Current CXF managed component is only workqueue manager, you can take it 
as example to export the CXF rt component as the JMX MBean.

Here is the original design doc of the CXF management [1], you can take 
a look at it.

[1] https://wiki.objectweb.org/celtix/Wiki.jsp?page=ManamgentDevPlan

Cheers,

Willem.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
Sent: Sat 1/27/2007 3:00
To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Managing (JMX) Configuration/Policy Beans
 
If we go this route, do we still need the annotations in cxf-common? The
only references to them that I see are on the work manager. Anyone know
about this code?

- Dan

On 1/26/07, Soltysik, Seumas <Seumas.Soltysik@iona.com> wrote:
 >
 > Good point. Using Spring to define the JMX interface definitely is easier
 > and makes more sense.
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
 > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:56 PM
 > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
 > Subject: Re: Managing (JMX) Configuration/Policy Beans
 >
 >
 > Is this information we really want to keep in our schemas? Spring 
provides
 > an approach where you can control the MBean interface through the
 > MBeanInfoAssembler
 > interface. There are multiple implementations including one where we can
 > just specify what methods should be exposed as attributes in the
 > spring.xml:
 >
 > http://static.springframework.org/spring/docs/2.0.x/reference/jmx.html
 >
 > 
http://static.springframework.org/spring/docs/2.0.x/reference/jmx.html#jmx-interface
 >
 > - Dan
 >
 > On 1/26/07, Soltysik, Seumas <Seumas.Soltysik@iona.com> wrote:
 > >
 > > It seems like it would be a good idea to be able to modify certain
 > runtime
 > > attributes associated with the config/policy Spring Beans via JMX. 
Since
 > > only certain attributes make sense to modify at runtime, only these
 > certain
 > > attributes should be exposed via an MBean. Could we integrate the
 > > information regarding which attributes should be exposed by annotating
 > the
 > > existing schemas for the policies and then modifying the JAXB code
 > generator
 > > to add JMX annotations to the appropriate getter/setter methods? This
 > way we
 > > can ensure that only certain appropriate values can be changed via JMX.
 > >
 > >
 >
 >
 > --
 > Dan Diephouse
 > Envoi Solutions
 > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
 >



-- 
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog


Mime
View raw message