geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Blewitt <>
Subject Re: Dynamic MBeans. Was: Kernel Architecture
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:20:12 GMT
On Tuesday, Aug 12, 2003, at 14:07 Europe/London, Greg Wilkins wrote:

> James Strachan wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> But by creating (and calling) them MBeans, you are tying it down to 
>>> a naming convention expected by JMX which may confuse the issue 
>>> later.
>> Why? Whats confusing about it? Why would inventing yet-another-API be 
>> any less confusing?
> Why can't we go for a totally dynamic MBean model?

Yes, this is precisely the kind of thing I was working towards. In the 
code sample posted earlier, I wanted to demonstrate how it could be 
done to avoid dependency on the JMX spec of calling things MBean, but 
still provide that as a service. There's no reason why it couldn't be 
achieved using a dynamic interface instead.

> This is the simplest form of MBean, but contains no meta data to
> describe that MBean - which has to be placed in an xml file elsewhere.
> If we decide not to use MBeans, then we still have our FooService
> objects and we have no FooServiceMBean objects clutering up the
> repository.

Yes, the less clutter (and dependency on MBeans) the better.

> If we decide to use MBeans - it means that we will have fewer
> undocumented MBeans without real meta data.  We can also expose
> more of an object simply by changing the MBean descriptor file.

Agree completely.


View raw message