I'll let jasons work on the spec module settle a bit and then look at committing these.
cheers
gianny DAMOUR wrote:
Hello,
These should be interface definitions rather than concrete classes - there
could be a variety of classes implementing them.
I diagree with this one. It is nice to provide an interface but not required. However, I have refactored the proposed patch.
Secondly, there should not need to be any references to javax.management in
them - the intention is that this model can be used by non-Java clients and
so all the attributes should be simple types; for example, the spec defines
the OBJECT_NAME type to be a string.
I agree with you. My initial intent was to have an implementation which was returning ObjectName. The management application mediator, e.g. MEJB, wich seats between the client and the model, was in charge of extracting from the ObjectName the OBJECT_NAME as a String.
However, I have refactored the proposed patch.
Cheers, Gianny
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail : un compte GRATUIT qui vous suit partout et tout le temps ! http://g.msn.fr/FR1000/9493
