--- Lemoine David-dlemoi01 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yes, the ServiceControl could use the
> MBeanServer.isInstanceOf(ObjectName objName, String
> className) before
> invoking the Service methods.
> What I find frustrating about JMX is that it seems
> difficult to implement a kind of "Service Provider"
> pattern as is commonly used in COM, for example
> (where you query a "service provider" for a given
> interface on a given component). I guess this
> follows from the fact that standard MBeans do not
> have a common interface.
>
> David.
>
AFAIK, the advantage of Dynamic MBeans is that they
are not statically constrained by inheritance and may
vary their interfaces dynamically at run time.
Both of these demonstrate the inadequacy of simply
checking the inheritance of a potential Service MBean.
Sorry to be so terse. I have put a longer explanation
of this in a previous reply.
Thanks for the interest,
Jules
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 11 April 2001 12:24
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Nested JMX Service
> Groups...??!
>
>
> Hey ppl,
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Julian Gosnell wrote:
>
> > I think that Services should publish 'boolean
> > isAJBossService() {return true;}' method.
> >
> > This could be implemented in MBeanServiceSupport
> for
> > standard Service MBeans. Dynamic Service MBeans
> would
> > have to do it themselves.
> >
>
> Yes sure, but what if DynamicMBean doesn't fullfill
> this contract or
> implements it poorly? DMBean will probably log
> NoSuchMethodException or
> even something worse and we will have bunch of
> "cosmetic" (thanks
> Scott) stacktraces/exceptions.
>
> I still don't see anything wrong with type check for
> org.jboss.util.Service.
>
> Vladimir
>
>
> > You could use naming, but then you constrain
> naming
> > conventions, which may upset someone else.
> >
> > Just my 1p's-worth,
> >
> > Jules
> >
> > --- Scott M Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > The Jetty mbean is logging the exception itself
> as a
> > > warning and then it
> > > is throwing the proper ReflectionException. The
> > > issue is that ServiceControl
> > > is invoking JBoss Service methods on any mbean
> that
> > > registers with the
> > > MBeanServer. There needs to be a way to tell
> > > ServiceControl that categories
> > > of mbean should not be treated as candidate
> JBoss
> > > services. I'm saying this
> > > is trivial to do using a domain naming
> convention
> > > and a configurable NotificationFilter
> > > based on mbean domain names.
> > >
> > > If anyone has a better way achieving this speak
> up.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 10:30 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Nested JMX Service
> > > Groups...??!
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Well, it looks to me like he has thrown the
> > > NoSuchMethodException himself
> > > > in his ModelMBeanImpl. This exception
> dexcends
> > > from Exception, thus is not
> > > > a reflection exception, and isn't caught by
> any of
> > > the exception
> > > > handlers/ignorers.
> > > >
> > > > I don't yet understand what ModelMBeans are
> for...
> > > but if he changed the
> > > > missing method handling to match that of line
> 1620
> > > of the MBeanServerImpl,
> > > > the problems might go away.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Further posts from Scott Stark and Marc Fleury
> > > make me think this may be
> > > > difficult to impossible. If so, we could
> instead
> > > change ServiceControl to
> > > > ignore MethodNotFoundExceptions as well as
> > > ReflectionExceptions. e.g.
> > > > around line 67
> > > >
> > > > } catch (ReflectionException e)
> > > > {
> > > > // Not a service - ok
> > > > }
> > > > catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
> > > > //Not a service - also ok
> > > > } catch (RuntimeMBeanException e)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Personally I am inclined to suggest putting
> empty
> > > methods for the
> > > > nonexistent operations in every mbean. I
> don't
> > > entirely understand why
> > > > this isn't in the mbean spec.
> > > >
> > > > David Jencks
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Jboss-development mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Jboss-development mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
