cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Diephouse" <...@envoisolutions.com>
Subject Re: Review of patch for CXF-427 [JMX]
Date Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:25:48 GMT
FWIW, I have written a JMX->SNMP plugin which is available here:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/sandbox/xbean-jmx/

I have not looked at WSDM yet, but it would be great to know whether an
abstraction layer is really needed or whether we could just use JMX
throughout. From an SNMP point of view, I don't think its a requirement that
we have an abstraction layer though. I will be sure to read the relavent
tuscany discussion though.

Seumas: been meaning to look at your patch, but I haven't had a chance yet
today. It is open on my desktop though :-)

- Dan

On 2/16/07, Liu, Jervis <jliu@iona.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Seumas, sorry I did not follow the previous discussion of "JMX Changes"
> very closely, I should have raised this concern early. I believe there is
> still one concern needs to be addressed, which was mentioned by Willem, but
> has not been paid enough attention to.
>
> Basically, I agree it is possible to simply how CXF instrumentation works
> by removing EventProcessor/EventListener, but I think we still need a good
> discussion to decide whether or not we should make the core of CXF
> instrumentation depends on JMX directly. CXF instrumentation was inherited
> from Celtix, one of core concepts of Celtix instrumentation design is
> "Instrumentation will have no hard dependency on any specific management
> protocols, such as JMX", see [1]. To be honest, I am not sure if this is an
> over design, as Celtix only has JMX supported anyway at the end of day, and
> I do not see CXF has any immediate requirement to support management
> protocols other than JMX, such as SNMP and WSDM. But this kind of capability
> definitely appears interesting to me, and it is worth a good consideration
> during the design, though the "common management model" approach proposed by
> Celtix may not be the only way to achieve the goal. Back to couple months
> ago, I was involved in a discussion in Tuscany on the topic of SCA
> management where they have a requirement to support both JMX and WSDM for
> Tuscany, see [2] [3] [4].
>
>
> [1]. https://wiki.objectweb.org/celtix/Wiki.jsp?page=ManamgentDevPlan
>
> [2]. http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg03625.html
>
> [3]. http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg04025.html
>
> [4]. http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg04025.html
>
> Cheers,
> Jervis
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Soltysik, Seumas [mailto:Seumas.Soltysik@iona.com]
> > Sent: 2007?2?16? 7:32
> > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Review of patch for CXF-427 [JMX]
> >
> >
> > I just uploaded a patch file for Jira CXF-427 which involves
> > a refactoring of the current JMX infrastructure. Could
> > someone take a look at this patch and apply it if deemed sufficient.
> > Thanks,
> > Seumas
> >
>



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

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