tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glenn Nielsen <>
Subject Re: 5.0 and jmx
Date Tue, 05 Nov 2002 01:00:48 GMT
There are now several commerical tools for doing production runtime
monitoring of java applications which can obtain their data using JMX.

Currently JMX in Tomcat is only being used for configuration data.
I would like to see this expanded to support making available production
runtime monitoring data.

With that in mind, I would like it to be easy to plug in an MBean
anywhere it might be useful to export metrics on tomcat performance
and usage of resources to the outside world.

I had planned on looking into this more when I have time in December.

Just thought I would throw this out so it can be considered as you
discuss the below.



Costin Manolache wrote:
> Not sure if this was decided or we are just in a status-quo mode.
> My question is what is our position regarding the dependency of
> tomcat5 on JMX and the level of integration/support. 
> There are 2 choices:
> - 5.0 requires JMX. If this is the case we can have code that takes
> advantage of this a bit more.
> - 5.0 doesn't require JMX, but it can be jmx-enabled using listeners
> and the modeler. 
> In both cases I think it is essential to make few changes - like letting
> the components know their own name and moving some of the logic
> that is now in mbeans/ package back to the components.
> For most cases it is possible to do that using some wrapper - like
> the new BaseRegistry I added to modeler ( unless someone -1 it :-)
> The problem I am trying to solve is the relative difficulty of
> adding new mbeans ( the MBeanFactory, the xml file, etc). 
> If nobody objects I would like to move the descriptor to META-INF
> and use getResources() to load all descriptors - I added some of the code  
> in modeler.
> A second change would be to add a mechanism to deal with 
> the MBeanRegistration - for example using some methods with the
> same name ( preRegister, postRegister, etc) that could be hooked with
> the current lifecycle. The hooks could be used to implement 
> the logic that is currently in the MBeanFactory in the real
> object ( for example have a LogValve register itself with the
> Context/Host/Container ).
> It is not very difficult to wrap most of the JMX functionality ( either in 
> BaseRegistry or in a JNDI context ). We need registration, location of
> components and callbacks. Of course, using JMX directly would simplify
> some code.
> Craig, Amy, Remy - I would apreciate feedback on those issues.
> Costin
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <>

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message