On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Julian Gosnell wrote:
> 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
Actually I don't believe this to be true. Dynamic MBeans can determine
their management interface at runtime, for example by reading an XML
file. This allows the management interface to be changed without
recompiling. But they should not vary the interface during their life
time. A management application can expect the management interface to stay
the same during the life time of the MBean, once it has retrieved it from the
agent. The agent is not required to enforce this static interface, so it
is possible to build dynamic mbeans that do vary their interfaces but this
can only be done with proprietary management applications. Compliant JMX
applications can't be expected to work.
So I still think checking for the Service interface is good enough for
solving the Jetty integration problem. For fancier life cycle management,
I think Stacy already has the base work done (via xmlets) and that is a
very interesting work, but not required for this particular problem at
hand :)
-- Juha
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
