On Sun, 9 Sep 2001 05:10, Mircea Toma wrote:
> > So Type 1 (kernel et al) management can be done via normal JMX
> > mechanisms.
>
> It
>
> > includes the actions you list above (ie start/stop/deploy/undeploy/etc)
>
> This is my opinion too! There are some problems still with the methods that
> don't have 'primitive'/'primitive wrapper' arguments, like the "deploy" for
> example.
>
> > while
> > Type 2 (Blocks et al) is different altogether. For Type 2 management
> > there
>
> is
>
> > essentially two facets - management of Configuration tree and management
>
> of a
>
> > custom management interface that a Block can choose to export.
>
> .. the problem is how to do it:
> 1) manage the Configuration trees that are stored in the repository
> 2) something that Leo recommended, having a DynamicMBean that takes the
> Block, its manageable interfaces and its Configuration
>
> Solution 1, which I prefer is separating the "configuration" management
> from the "action" management. For the "action" management the
> implementation is there (Leo's JMX stuff). The "configuration" management
> can be done by changing the configuration trees stored in the Repository,
> the Block-s that will implement Reconfigurable interface will receive
> automatically the new configuration (assuming that the "monitor" package
> will be used).
+1
But I would like Blocks to be able to export their own interface aswell if
they so choose. However that can be left till "later" ;)
--
Cheers,
Pete
------------------------------
Kitsch never goes out of style
------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
