geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: WARNING!! re: Request for backward-incompatible gbean plan change (related to GERONIMO-450)
Date Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:09:55 GMT

On Feb 6, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:

> David Jencks wrote:
>> I think there was no response to this, so unless someone speaks up  
>> really soon I'm going to implement the change.  IMO the sooner its  
>> changed the less confusion it will cause.
> Lost it in the noise - sorry.
> I find the construction stuff confusing, mostly due to unfamiliarity - 
> is there doco somewhere on what the new syntax is and what you can set 
> when building the name?

GERONIMO-450 has some info.

Basically, you can either set the name (currently namePart) or the 
entire gbeanName (currently name).  If you set the name, then:
J2EEApplication, and
J2EEModule come from the Configuration

j2eeType comes from the GBeanInfo.

In addition, the J2EEDomain and J2EEServer of a Configuration are 
copied from its parent configuration, or if it has no parent you must 
specify them in the plan for that configuration.

For a gbean from a "service" (non-j2ee module) plan, the 
G2EEApplication is "null" and the J2EEModule is the configId.

Are you also asking about all the methods in NameFactory that builder 
code uses to construct object names?  Note that builders, such as the 
ejb builder, can set the type as they please, such as for the kind of 
ejb being deployed.
> I would suggest supporting "gbeanname" as an alias for objectname - 
> objectname makes sense for a JMX based kernel but back in Nov(?) we 
> were discussing moving away from JMX artifacts.

good idea.  Lets use it instead of objectName
> Finally, is it worth adding a hybrid mode where we mix in the JSR77 
> parts but otherwise allow the user to specify the rest, something like
> <gbean appname="name=SomeName,type=SomeType" ...

I haven't seen a use for this yet.  Lets wait until we can't get by 
without it.

There's at least one gbean that seems to need a specific fixed object 
name, namely  JaasLoginServiceRemotingServer.  Naming this with a 
normal jsr-77 name would require client who attempt to login to know 
the domain, server, and module this gbean was deployed in.  When I 
suggested this there was considerable opposition.  I'm wondering if we 
should cater to these fixed name gbeans by supplying the name from 
GBeanInfo somehow.  Possibly just commenting the plan in which it 
appears would be sufficient.  On the other hand, we might be able to  
eliminate the "whole object name" choice if we supplied the names for 
these singleton gbeans from the gbean info.

david jencks

> --
> Jeremy

View raw message