Hi,
Well, I'm not saying it's anything important. But for example, XMLet could detect if
any mandatory service (ServiceControl or ConfigurationService) is missing from the
"conf" file, whereas MLet can't. Also, it seems to me that you could have a single
configuration file instead of the current .conf + .jcml files.
On the other hand, there are perhaps good reasons for not mixing the MBean-loading and
configuration formats, let me know.
Cheers,
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: marc fleury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 April 2001 03:58
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Custom startup solved !? was: Nested JMX
Service Groups...??!
As opposed to the current Configuration Service that already pases the MLet
semantics to XML???
why?
marc
|-----Original Message-----
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
|Lemoine David-dlemoi01
|Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 11:05 AM
|To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Custom startup solved !? was: Nested JMX
|Service Groups...??!
|
|
|Hi,
|
|Whatever solution you decide on for this problem, I think it could
|be a good idea to replace the current MLet MBean-loader with
|Stacy's XML-based XMLet.
|
|Just my 2 irish cents,
|
|David.
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
