Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of elakito@googlemail.com
 designates 209.85.160.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4FED6794.2030001@gmail.com>
References: <4FED6794.2030001@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:42:47 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAF8t5XvvptywQsznTVbvWo-kc0g47MUMFhvQpj=9rcAGydVLAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Adding the instance.id on the ObjectName
From: Aki Yoshida <elakito@googlemail.com>
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Willem,
I am not sure exactly what you mean by this "instance.id".

Currently, if no id attribute is set, the bus.id is generated by the
bundle id plus cxf and a random number.
When the id attribute is set, it is used as the bus.id shown in JMX.

I am not sure how this "instance.id" is supposed to be used in your use cas=
e.

Could you give some examples?
Thanks.
regards, aki

2012/6/29 Willem Jiang <willem.jiang@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> As you know CXF management provides a lots MBeans out of box. It works
> perfect if it run as stand alone.
> If we deploy the CXF endpoints into container like Apache Karaf, we may h=
it
> the issue that Object is already registered. That is because we don't bui=
ld
> up unique Object name for JMX to use. And there could be more than one Bu=
s
> which id is CXF.
>
> To resolve this issue I suggest we add the "instance.id" on the ObjectNam=
e.
> As JMX supports to look up the object with a query string, I don't think
> this change will effect much on the user CXF management codes.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> --
> Willem
> ----------------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://www.fusesource.com
> Blog: =A0 =A0http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://jnn.javaeye.com (Chinese)
> Twitter: willemjiang
> Weibo: willemjiang
>