geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Strachan <>
Subject Re: [services] getting service developers started - the initial component model
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:01:49 GMT

On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 12:51  pm, James deGraft-Johnson wrote:

> I agree with this.
> By structuring the kernel architecture like JMX/MBeans we will 
> simplify the
> design task, have less changes (refactoring) to make to existing 
> kernel,
> which is based on JMX/MBeans. However it is important not to tie the 
> design
> tightly to JMX/MBeans, (or implement the kernel strictly as 
> JMX/MBeans) as
> pointed out). Note that JMX/MBeans is meant to be a feature (management
> extension) of the J2EE container not an architecture for design of the 
> J2EE
> kernel. By not tightly coupling kernel architecture to JMX/MBeans we 
> can
> incorporate design ideas from outside JMX/MBeans and also allow the
> component to be changed later.


we have

	components <-> container <-> JMX

The container in the middle could be based on JMX or could be based on 
some other model and just adapt to JMX. But thats the containers job to 
figure that out.

For all the services & component developers we should adopt the 
standard MBean programming model as the first convention for 
developers. In the future we may have other options for component 
authors to follow (e.g. Pico components or Avalon components etc). 
However for now following the MBean convention is a no brainer since 
its already being used & supported.

If developers of a service wish to use some new wizzy abstraction API 
or to write Pico components or to use some Avalon container or whatever 
- then we can just deploy the container inside Geronimo via MBeans. So 
we could have..

	avalon component -> avalon container -> avalon MBean -> geronimo -> JMX


View raw message