cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Liu, Jervis" <j...@iona.com>
Subject RE: Review of patch for CXF-427 [JMX]
Date Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:43:25 GMT
Exactly, this is a design choice. We either need to make an abstract layer then build up everything
like JMX/SNMP/WSDM etc on top it, or we just use JMX in the core, then bridge everything else
from JMX, for example JMX-SNMP etc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
> Sent: 2007?2?17? 4:26
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Review of patch for CXF-427 [JMX]
> 
> 
> 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
View raw message