I'm curious why you think OpenMBeans are awkward and unmanageable. Seems pretty easy to me. What am I missing?
Well, there is a principle in subatomic physics (but, hey, I'm a lawyer so don't get picky just now :-)) saying that even observation can cause perturbation of a system, so that measurements are not to be trusted beyond a certain extent since the act of measuring might have impacted the results.
I'm afraid that this is the case with "advanced" JMX. I'm still a newbie on different implementations, but I think that instrumentation should be a *thin* layer on top of business objects (and this seems to be thee case for standard mbeans). When you enter dynamic mbeans the situation gets nasty, since you have to support a whole mess of object graphs (MBeanInfo having references to MBeanConstructorInfo and MBeanOperationInfo, which in turn have references to MBeanParameterInfo, plus MBeanAttributeInfo and MBeanNotificationInfo: hey, wait, does that mean that to manage _one_ freaking object I have to have roughly 10 support objects? Now come on...). Model and Open MBean keep adding complexity since they are dynamic beans plus "something", raising the object count to about 15 for every managed object. Now, get real...
Now, I'd really love to be proven wrong, but heck, this is a serious mess. What are the chances of having/introducing bugs in the management part alone? And what is the introduced overweigth of such management?
Ciao,
-- Gianugo Rabellino Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com (Blogging at: http://www.rabellino.it/blog/)
