I'll let jasons work on the spec module settle a bit and then
look at committing these.
cheers
gianny DAMOUR wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>> 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
>> javax.management 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.
>
>
> I agree with you. My initial intent was to have an implementation which
> was returning ObjectName. The management application mediator, e.g.
> MEJB, wich seats between the client and the model, was in charge of
> extracting from the ObjectName the OBJECT_NAME as a String.
>
> However, I have refactored the proposed patch.
>
> Cheers,
> Gianny
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail : un compte GRATUIT qui vous suit partout et tout le temps !
> http://g.msn.fr/FR1000/9493
|