geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <>
Subject Re: Mbeans for Blueprint
Date Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:24:46 GMT
I think those are two separate concerns.  What we were discussion is
to expose one mbean for the blueprint extender that would allow
monitoring the state of the extender and various blueprint bundles.
I think what you are proposing is to allow a user to expose beans over
JMX.  I do agree that this is worthwhile, but that's a totally
different discussion imho.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 15:50, Jarek Gawor <> wrote:
> I agree that we should leverage open mbeans for this as much as we
> can. Also, I was wondering if we should consider creating namespace
> handler that could directly expose individual beans within the
> blueprint container as mbeans. But maybe exposing a bean as a service
> (and therefore as a mbean) is good enough.
> Jarek
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Rex Wang <> 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

Guillaume Nodet
Open Source SOA

View raw message