geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Blewitt <>
Subject Re: [components] - lazy loading...
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:34:32 GMT
On Monday, Aug 11, 2003, at 16:21 Europe/London, Berin Loritsch wrote:

> Alex Blewitt wrote:
>> I really like this idea. Berin seems to think that it's eminantly 
>> doable, Jason sounds like he needs to be convinced.
>> If this is already provided as part of Avalon, or Avalon-esque 
>> systems, then perhaps this is worth investigating in more detail? 
>> Could Berin provide this?
>> It might not be doable using the current JMX interceptor stack, but 
>> if it can be done using another mechanism (and demonstrably so) then 
>> perhaps that's a good reason to look at using a different mechanism.
> I'll be honest about my ignorance of JMX as a whole.  I know some 
> rudimentary
> support for it has been added to the Avalon Phoenix container code, 
> but I
> would like a better idea on how it is desired to be used in the 
> Geronimo/
> whatever we want to call this project codebase.

I'm not sure that you /would/ achieve this using JMX. Instead, the 
lazy-loader approach as per the Pheonix (or Merlin) kernels would 
probably be more demonstrative of the ideas.

> In Phoenix, JMX is relegated to providing an exposed interface to 
> Avalon
> components that are meant to be managed externally.  It isn't used by 
> the
> kernel to create and tear down component instances.

There has been ongoing discussions in this mailing list as to whether 
or not JMX should be used to do this anyway.  Current feeling seems to 
indicate that (a) At present, the initial code base uses JMX to do 
everything, but (b) It may be replaced at a later stage if someone else 
presents itself, but only with good reason.

> IMO a management interface like JMX/SNMP should only be used for an
> administrator's console to customize or manage aspects of the running
> system.  That fits in with the Phoenix approach.

I concur completely, as do some others on this list. An example of how 
we can use this to set up services without having to use JMX would 
therefore be of considerable interest.

> That means that the Avalon components can already be loaded on 
> demand--without
> any additional coding necessary--once the component is initialized, 
> the JMX
> MBean can be created and published.

Indeed, this is the way that JMX should be used, as a management 
interface -- not as a kernel implementation.

> My GUI app framework at uses Avalon Fortress, which employs
> asynchronous component management--no extra code necessary.  I also 
> have
> a distributed print server on my harddrive that can take advantage of 
> it,
> but it is all about what makes sense for this project.

I'd like to find out more about what you've done, if we can take this 
discussion out of the group, and then perhaps present a way of how we 
might use these kind of ideas to provide a micro-kernel architecture 
for the system.

> Alex.

View raw message