geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>
Subject Dynamic MBeans. Was: Kernel Architecture
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:07:33 GMT


James Strachan wrote:

>>> An interface based MBean is just a naming convention. There is no 
>>> tying to anything. Indeed there's not even a dependency on JMX never 
>>> mind any other container API. Then the container is totally free to 
>>> go in whatever direction it wishes.
>>
>>
>> But by creating (and calling) them MBeans, you are tying it down to a 
>> naming convention expected by JMX which may confuse the issue later.
> 
> 
> Why? Whats confusing about it? Why would inventing yet-another-API be 
> any less confusing?


Why can't we go for a totally dynamic MBean model?

Ie - for a given FooService, why do we need to write a FooServiceMBean
interface that just has the methods we wish to expose?

This is the simplest form of MBean, but contains no meta data to
describe that MBean - which has to be placed in an xml file elsewhere.

I think we should be able to just create the FooService objects
and then describe any MBeans we want for them in XML - describing
the methods and the meta data in one spot.

If we decide not to use MBeans, then we still have our FooService
objects and we have no FooServiceMBean objects clutering up the
repository.

If we decide to use MBeans - it means that we will have fewer
undocumented MBeans without real meta data.  We can also expose
more of an object simply by changing the MBean descriptor file.


-- 
Greg Wilkins<gregw@mortbay.com>             Phone/fax: +44 7092063462
Mort Bay Consulting Australia and UK.          http://www.mortbay.com


Mime
View raw message