geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Strachan <james_strac...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: Kernel Architecture
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:17:19 GMT

On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 11:36  am, James deGraft-Johnson wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I like the suggestion that even if we decide to go with the MBean 
> model, a
> layer be created, possibly via an interface so this software isn't 
> tightly
> coupled to MBeans.

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.


> Whatever we do, the ease of implementation, such as ease of kernel and
> service development should be paramount. The easier it is to develop, 
> the
> greater the chances that we can focus on removing bugs and increasing
> performance. (In particular, by ease I mean the extra code and it's
> complexity needed to integrate kernel/service implementation into the
> framework.) I think this requirement should be weighed against other
> benefits of the alternative architectures.

Agreed.

Which is why I think us all developing MBeans to start with is the 
easiest approach. They are very simple. Take a look at some of them in 
CVS (they end with *MBean.java)

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/


Mime
View raw message