marc fleury wrote:
>
> |marc fleury wrote:
> |> |extend ServiceMBean with these methods and call it DeployerMBean? Why
> |> |not create an abstract implementation of this called
> |> |DeployerMBeanSupport that converts the strings to URLs and keeps tracks
> |> |of which URLs have been deployed? Doing this would make life easier for
> |> |people wanting to add deployers for different kinds of modules (such as
> |> |resource adapters).
> |>
> |> Ok so a specific "deployment aware" service would register with the
> |> "DeployerMBeanSupport" and upon deployment you call everyone?
> |
> |No, I think he meant make a subclass of ServiceMBeanSupport, and have
> |deployment service subclass it to ensure that they implement the
> |"deployment interface" and also get a default impl. for it.
>
> Ok yes, that is what he meant by "DeployerMBeanSupport" as the basic
> interface for Services that are "DeploymentAware".
Yes.
> So I can be more precise and say that we would register the
> "DeployerMBeanSupport" MBeans with a new J2EE Deployer.
>
> Today we need ad-hoc "Deployers" (as in J2EE Deployer) that takes a
> JSP/Servlet and the EJB stack. Now that we have a generic interface we
> could stack them up in our generalized J2EE Deployer, the only problem that
> remains is "what type of file do you take"... and that would need to be
> specified in the MBean (getExtensionType()) so we could configure it with
> the new jcml files :)
Yep, that's exactly whay I was trying to get at. I feel that I'm lacking
in vision on the general "J2EE deployment" side of things, but I'm happy
to code something like this up if it's agreed that it's right direction.
Toby.
> he he
>
> marc
>
> |
> |/Rickard
> |
> |--
> |Rickard �berg
> |
> |Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |
> |
--
Toby Allsopp
Research
Peace Software International Ltd
Ph +64-9-3730400
