geronimo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <>
Subject Re: JSR77 StateManageable inconsistency?
Date Mon, 09 Jan 2006 20:27:53 GMT
Hmm, that's curious.  Every GBean is state manageable in the sense
that if you talk to the kernel it can get and change the state of the
GBean.  And if you have the kernel generate you a proxy it includes
the state manageable methods in one of the implemented interfaces,

However, it may well be the case that invoking such a method through
the MEJB doesn't work properly.  If so, we should be able to just
change the MEJB to make the right kernel calls under the covers if you
call one of the state manageable methods.

Can you send over (post to JIRA or the mailing list) a small test
program that demonstrates the problem, which we could then use to test
the fix?


On 1/9/06, Leigh Williamson <> wrote:
> I have been attempting to port a J2EE 1.4 management program to Geronimo and
> noticed what appears to be inconsistency in the way JSR77 StateManageable
> attribute is handled.
> The spec says that if one of the JSR77 objects does support the StateManageable
> interface it should return "true" for the stateManageable attribute of the
> J2EEManagedObject interface. Returning "true" for the stateManageable attribute
> is supposed to tell the management program that this object supports the
> StateManageable interface which includes the "state" attribute, as well as
> implementing the "stop", "start", and "startRecursive" operations.
> But the J2EEManagedObjects returned by the ManagementEJB in Geronimo appear to
> be inconsistent in this area. For instance, the J2EEDeployedObject claims to be
> a state manageable object (stateManageable="true") but if you attempt to
> getAttribute the "state" attribute you will receive an exception:
> state
> In a different example of inconsistency, the J2EEServer object also claims to
> be StateManageable, yet I cannot invoke the "stop" operation on that object.
> Perhaps I am accessing these J2EEManagedObjects incorrectly? I am using the
> ManagementEJB as per the spec. Is this a bug in the implementation?

View raw message