When is 1.0.2 planned to be released? 2009/10/16 Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com>
> However, if we have time to refactor it very soon, i would certainly > have no problem to include it in 1.0.2. > What I meant is that I'd rather avoid exposing an mbean which is bound > to be refactored in the near future. > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:30, David Bosschaert > <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Okidoki, I'll leave that one for now. > > > > Cheers, > > > > David > > > > 2009/10/15 Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com> > > > >> Right, I think I've missed that one while refactoring the JMX layer > >> for the features service. > >> Unless there is a real need for that now, I would defer to 1.2.0 and > >> refactor it in a more coarse grained service, the same way we did for > >> the FeaturesServiceMBean, so that we'd have a getInstances() method > >> that would return a TabularData containing all the informations > >> available for a give instance (name, port and state for now). We > >> could leave the other methods unchanged. > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 18:09, David Bosschaert > >> <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > While looking at FELIX-1655, I noticed that there is actually an > >> > AdminServiceMBean in the code, but it doesn't seem to be registered > with > >> the > >> > MBean Server. Is this done deliberately or is this an oversight or am > I > >> > missing it? > >> > > >> > I think having this controllable through JMX would be useful - I'd be > >> happy > >> > to try an enable this functionality... > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > > >> > David > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> Guillaume Nodet > >> ------------------------ > >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > >> ------------------------ > >> Open Source SOA > >> http://fusesource.com > >> > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com >
