geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <dblev...@gluecode.com>
Subject Re: GBeanName [was: svn commit: r154723...]
Date Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:33:21 GMT

On Feb 22, 2005, at 10:06 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:

> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we will need a canonical form.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>> Because, you want to print two gbeans names that are equal and get 
>> the same string. Because, you don't want geronimo classes bleeding 
>> into your apis.
>> Anyway, why not? ObjectName has a canonical format, why are we not 
>> providing one?
>>
>
> Well, apart from flight of fancy we don't actually have a need for it 
> yet. It's not exactly hard to add when we do.
>

The protocol layer in OpenEJB uses the canonical string version all 
over the place.  We avoided ObjectName on the wire as String is capable 
of representing an ObjectName and serializes faster and with less bytes 
as there is special logic in java.io.ObjectOutput/InputStream that 
basically treats them like primitives.

I'm happy to see GBeanName replace ObjectName so we can have a JMX-free 
Kernel, but I don't want to GBeanName creep into places where 
ObjectName didn't need to go.

-David


Mime
View raw message