geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Snyder <>
Subject Re: Spring integration...
Date Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:57:14 GMT
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:28:34 +0000, Jules Gosnell
<> wrote:
> David Jencks wrote:
> > That's a somewhat different issue.  The Tomcat mbeans are basically
> > completely unknown to geronimo.  If we started the kernel with the
> > BasicGBeanRegistry rather than the JMXGBeanRegistry you'd never know
> > they were there.
> That's not to say that they are not needed though - Jetty, as I expect
> Tomcat does, provides a J2EE management interface through the correct
> APIs published via the JMX API on a number of it's internal components.
> Geronimo's webcontainer management interface would be incomplete without
> these - thus they should be made available through the kernel. na matter
> what configuration you are running.
> >
> > If you wrapped the tomcat mbeans as gbeans, then you'd have a similar
> > issue when you tried to decide if you wanted to use the tomcat
> > lifecycle or replace it with the geronimo lifecycle.
> You would put the relevant listeners on them such that they were
> registered with the kernel after creation and removed before
> destruction. They would not be created before the Jetty/Tomcat service
> was deployed, or destroyed after it had been destroyed.
> >
> > At this point I think that having 2 dependency/lifecycle systems
> > trying to manage the same objects is a disaster waiting to happen.  My
> > current bias is to remove the other guys dependency/lifecycle
> > management and do all of that through geronimo/gbeans.
> ??? lost you here - are you saying rewrite Tomcat and Jetty because they
> implement the standard J2EE management interface and Geronimo doesn't ?
The statement above is absolutely correct! Geronimo is the long pole
in the tent here. The two examples we're discussing (Jetty and Tomcat)
both already utilize JMX - the standard for managing Java applications
and components.

It seems to me that Geronimo needs to meet in the middle on this
issue. Requiring apps that have already implemented JMX to jump
through the hoops of a custom managment implementation does the
Geronimo community no good. I think that there should be a way to
bring apps like this into the Geronimo managment fold in an easy
manner or Geronimo needs to bridge the gap between a separation of the

perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
The Castor Project

Apache Geronimo

View raw message