geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Boynes <>
Subject Re: State Manageable Objects in Geronimo
Date Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:38:47 GMT
Jacek Laskowski wrote:

> Hey,
> I don't fully understand what's in Geronimo pertaining to SMOs.
> is marked with the following 
> comment:
> //
> // This source code implements specifications defined by the Java
> // Community Process. In order to remain compliant with the specification
> // DO NOT add / change / or delete method signatures!
> //
> So, if it's a part of JCP process why it's not in specs/j2ee-management 
> directory. On the other hand, why should it be in that directory? That's 
> another issue, I can't find the SMO class in the spec. There's a chapter 
> about it in J2EE Management 1.0 spec, but no javadoc about the class in 
> J2EE 1.4 javadoc.

JSR77 defines a management API that can be used from any language not 
just Java. It therefore defines attributes and operations in generic, 
language neutral terms and does not define classes or interfaces; for 
example, although it calls things OBJECT_NAME, they are formatted 
Strings and not

The attributes an object must provide are defined by the spec, hence the 
comment I believe. However, unlike a rigid definition vendors are 
allowed to add additional attributes.

For StateManagable, we now implement that with GBeans with the 
GBeanMBean wrapper providing the API. The wrapper exposes all the 
attributes and operations from StateManageable on behalf of the 
underlying GBean so the bean implementation does not need to worry about it.

Having these interfaces is probably not needed any more and perhaps we 
should start getting rid of them.


View raw message