geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Saad Rehmani" ...@nextjet.com>
Subject RE: [JNDI] [Config] Configuration: flat file or registry?
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:19:05 GMT
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?
;)

-saad

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Blewitt [mailto:Alex.Blewitt@ioshq.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:43 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [JNDI] [Config] Configuration: flat file or registry?

No, because an MBean facade doesn't make sense. JMX is designed to 
support /management/ of beans, not to configure them (or indeed, much 
of the services in an app).

At present, although the initial cut of the code is heavily MBean 
focussed, I (personally) hope that the JMX stuff will take second place 
to a more fine-tuned kernel that just exposes itself via MBean 
functionality.

You raise a good point that an interpretor can read out the content of 
the JNDI file and present a file-based view; in fact, that's one of the 
possible work-arounds for a JNDI view and CVS as described on the page.

Alex.

On Monday, Aug 11, 2003, at 18:33 Europe/London, Saad Rehmani wrote:

> Does it make sense to think of the configuration information as 
> residing
> in a registry/tree which is facaded by mbeans?
>
> The text file could just have an interpretor that would eventually act
> as yet another client for the mbeans and spit out an updated view of 
> the
> config at the end.
>
> Any concurrency issues can be dealt with at the mbeans / jndi /
> registry-implementation level as they'll have to face those anyways.
> They'll have to deal with those anyways.
>
> -saad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Hamblett [mailto:shamblett@charter.net]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:21 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [JNDI] [Config] Configuration: flat file or registry?
>
>
> Alex,
>
>      I don't know if this will help, but I have been
> working with iPlanet/Sun ONE, and if I remember correctly
> (this comes from the marketing types) there is a
> configuration feature that allows the configuration to be
> in both places.  The flat file is offered as a defelopment
> solution, and allows configurations to be shared easily
> between servers.  I believe there is some continuity
> between both, where the registry can be loaded via file,
> and can be dumped to file.  I don't know if this strategy
> will help, or just create noise.  Sorry if the latter.
>
>
> Sean
>
>
>   Alex Blewitt <Alex.Blewitt@ioshq.com> wrote:
>> I kicked off a thread suggesting configuration
>> information may be stored in a registry-based system
>> instead of a flat-file/xml-based format, which provoked
>> some interesting comments and discussions.
>>
>> I've created a few pages to capture this in:
>>
>> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ConfigurationAsFlatFile
>> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ConfigurationAsRegistry
>> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ApacheJ2EE/Configuration
>>
>> and put comments that have been made by others in there.
>> Ideally, I'd like people to review the first couple and
>> add any other advantages/disadvantages/wishlist items
>> inside there.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Alex.
>>
>


Mime
View raw message