geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Mbeans for Blueprint
Date Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:36:43 GMT
There are discussions about implementing rfc 139 inside the Aries
podling, so maybe it would make sense to discuss that in this context
too.

>From a Karaf pov, I think it would really make sense to add such an
mbean.  Do you see a single mbean for the extender that would allow
accessing the BlueprintContext through a tabular data or do you see
one mbean per BLueprintContext ?  I would lean toward the first
solution so keep the coarse grained behavior of rfc 139.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 06:54, Rex Wang <rwonly@gmail.com> wrote:
> This topic might be a little bit independent from what we are doing in
> current osgi integration work. However, I would like to raise such
> discussion because I believe blueprint will act as an important role in our
> future framework. So, if we wanna leverage blueprint as a common way to
> construct geronimo plugins and hope use JMX for remote management, we
> definitely need a set of mbeans to track the blueprint bundles. Currently, I
> am working on this work item.
>
> OSGi Alliance is planing to release an enterprise spec which contains rfc
> 139(mbeans for core framework and 3 compendium services), but there is no
> mbeans for blueprint. So I think our jobs go ahead of the standard. We did a
> quick look on karaf and spring dm, and did not found them using mbeans to
> track and manage the state of blueprint. I hope the works we are doing are
> helpful as a complement of rfc 139.
>
> OK, although RFC139 says it is not to provide a generic mechanism that be
> used to expose management of arbitrary OSGi services through JMX, we still
> deside to keep our design consistent with it. That is to leverage the
> openmbean's open type in the data structure of mbeans' return value, such as
> compositeType, tabularType.. And there is not too much APIs exposed by
> blueprint, so I think only one Mbean is enough right now.
>
> A problem is that how we track the status. In the rfc124 spec, blueprint
> bundle's status can be identified by listening the events that pre-defined.
> The blueprint extender sends those events to the Event Admin service, but in
> RFC 139 there is no mbeans designed to manage the event admin. So looks like
> we need a mbean provides the APIs to track bluepirnt application and its
> implementation must also implement the BlueprintListener interface. That is
> what we are thinking currently.
>
> Is anybody insteresting on this topic or do you know anythings behind the
> scenes from Karaf/Springsource that say why they seems not plan to design
> such mbeans?
> Any comments is appreciated.
>
> Regards
> -Rex
>



-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Mime
View raw message