Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <3F32C1E8.9070700@yahoo.fr>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 23:17:28 +0200
From: Emmanuel Bernard <epbernard@yahoo.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Central piece: to JMX or not to JMX
References: <5F83B59C-C8CB-11D7-B192-0003934D3EA4@bandlem.com>
In-Reply-To: <5F83B59C-C8CB-11D7-B192-0003934D3EA4@bandlem.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alex Blewitt wrote:

> I don't believe that a J2EE server should be the /central/ piece, 
> though it should obviously be a main piece.
>
> One approach would be to configure various services with JMX, which 
> leads to the question: should components be built on top of JMX, or 
> should an interface be provided to control via JMX? My preference 
> would be (initially) for the latter; although projects like JBoss are 
> built on top of JMX I'm not sure it's necessary (or even desirable) to 
> depend on JMX directly. (ApacheJ2EE hasA JMX interface, not ApacheJ2EE 
> isA JMX interface).
>
> I think a micro-kernel architecture for setting up the server and 
> configuring the various pieces is probably a good idea though, and 
> that should be the central piece. The other components can then sit on 
> top of that:
>
> + GeronimoKernel
> |-- GeronimoJNDIService
> |-- GeronimoEJBContainer
> |-- GeronimoWebContainer (maybe an interface to plug in Tomcat etc)
> |-- GeronimoSecurityService

See the Geronimo and avalon thread,. The Geronimo Kernel you talk of  
sounds like an avalon framework implementation