geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [JNDI] [Config] Configuration: flat file or registry?
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:35:46 GMT
Alex Blewitt wrote:

> 
> On Monday, Aug 11, 2003, at 21:19 Europe/London, Saad Rehmani wrote:
> 
>> Alex,
>>
>> I still think it's a good idea. Even if we don't call those objects
>> MBeans and they have at least these two properties:
>>
>> - The ability to set / get attributes
>> - The ability to traverse hierarchical structures and pull out
>> attributes
>>
>> Would it make more sense to you if we called them LightWeightAlexBeans?
>> ;)
> 
> 
> At the risk of being ego centric, yes :-)
> 
> Seriously, though -- that's all a configuration interface needs to be. 
> Kind of a merge between a TreeModel and a JavaBean.
> 
> The biggie is that JMX is /way/ more than that, with the result that a 
> lot of the other JMX features get exposed/used/abused in the 
> implementation to the extent that you don't know what's there and what's 
> not. The current code shot depends heavily on JMX, for example with 
> calling components JMX names and using a MBeanServer as an argument to 
> register with. Decoupling code is easy; decoupling concepts is much more 
> difficult.


Hmm. Ever seen the Avalon Configuration API?  It's pretty easy to use.
It also is easily bound to XML and LDAP.  One class takes care of a
number of possibilities.


-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin


Mime
View raw message