geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Blewitt <Alex.Blew...@ioshq.com>
Subject Re: [JSR77] plug strategy proposal.
Date Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:08:01 GMT
On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 16:01 Europe/London, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 12:51 AM, gianny DAMOUR wrote:
>
>> Dain Sundstrom:
>>> Can you tell me what your goal is,
>> My intent is to propose an implementation of JSR77, which could 
>> potentially be re-used.
>
> Reused by whom?  ...by some other container using something other then 
> JMX.  I really don't see a demand for this, and adding another layer 
> of complexity (for something we don't plan on using) at this stage 
> seems like a bad idea.  If it becomes a priority later we can easily 
> add the abstraction in.

Actually, the more dependencies you hard-wire into JMX now, the more 
difficult it's going to be to put that abstraction layer in. Having it 
in now is both sensible from a design perspective, and also allows 
common services to be implemented using abstract classes that implement 
the interface, as opposed to a bunch of methods that get called through 
reflection.

>>> I really don't understand why we need this abstraction layer.
>> I would like to remove from the type hierarchy of the kernel 
>> components the specificities of JSR77.
>
> Our deployment system is fundamentally based on 77, but our kernel 
> only understand JMX and specifically doesn't do any 77 stuff.  77 is 
> really handled by the components, if they don't implement it properly 
> the kernel doesn't care.  Other components will care if they depend on 
> something that does not properly implement the life-cycle, but the 
> kernel doesn't care in the least bit.

The kernel is the right place to handle the 77 management; whilst it 
doesn't get handled by the kernel at the moment, it probably should do 
in the future.

Alex.


Mime
View raw message