geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <>
Subject Re: Dynamic MBeans. Was: Kernel Architecture
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:56:39 GMT
Jens Schumann wrote:

>>Von: Greg Wilkins <>
>>Why can't we go for a totally dynamic MBean model?
> Just a few thoughts:
> - With JMX 1.2 (maybe with 1.1, can't remember when SimpleMBeans where
> introduced) you get meta data for SimpleMBeans.
> - With dynamic Mbeans you loose your concrete interface, and with it a
> simple way to create proxies to them (remote access etc.)
> - Don't forget inheritance - in my opinion pretty dangerous by using Dynamic
> MBeans.

Consider for a moment the purpose of MBeans.  They are to allow a management
console to control aspects of your software.  So they were originally created
to provide an end user a way to control the guts of software.  They were not
created to provide a direct programmatic interface to the underlying software.

So if you lookup your components and access them by a direct Java interface,
then you can easily remote that component, control the inheritance structure,
and still have the benefit of what JMX was designed for.

MBean != interface, and we should never use them as such.  By following that
mantra, dynamic MBeans becomes a viable tool with few drawbacks.

Remember, JMX is a tool but a golden hammer it is not.


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

View raw message