geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeremy Boynes" <>
Subject RE: [PATCH] JSR77 - 4 managed objects
Date Fri, 15 Aug 2003 03:27:40 GMT
"This chapter contains the models and metamodels that specify the format,
semantics and relationship of the managed objects required by all compliant
implementations of this specification." [JSR77 pp 19]

By making these (final) concrete classes, you are dictating the
implementation. However, the specification is deliberately vague here to
allow for different vendor implementations of this model. Even within
Geronimo, there could be different implementations - for example, different
WebModules from Jetty and Tomcat, different JMSResources from OpenJMS vs

You have also defined the implementation of the relationships between the
managed objects - for example, the implementation of
J2EEDomainImpl.getServers(). This requires the kernel to ensure that all
relationships are accurately reflected in these objects rather than having
the implementation here determine that from the true component relationship.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your contribution here but I think it would
be better to define the interfaces across the board.


> >These should be interface definitions rather than concrete
> classes - there
> >could be a variety of classes implementing them.
> I diagree with this one. It is nice to provide an interface but not
> required. However, I have refactored the proposed patch.
> >Secondly, there should not need to be any references to
> in
> >them - the intention is that this model can be used by non-Java
> clients and
> >so all the attributes should be simple types; for example, the
> spec defines
> >the OBJECT_NAME type to be a string.

View raw message