I'm not sure about the idea of having a single configuration file, isn't the
.jcml 'dynamic' in that it reflects the
last state of the Agent ?
I think that there are several benefits from using the XMLet.
1) It's at least as good as the MLet
2) It's much more extensible, so for example you don't have to construct all
your
mbeans with Strings, ints, booleans, etc, but with generic java objects:
<xmlet code="SomeMBean">
<arg>
<param class="MyClass">
<param class="java.lang.String">Fred</param>
<param class="boolean">true</param>
</param>
</arg>
</xmlet>
where SomeMBean has a constructor: SomeMBean(MyClass myClass)
and MyClass has a constructor MyClass(String string, boolean b)
Here's another example, this time just using arrays, which with the MLet
isn't possible:
<xmlet code="AnotherMBean">
<arg>
<param class="java.lang.String[]">
<param class="java.lang.String">Fred</param>
<param class="java.lang.String">Wilma</param>
<param class="java.lang.String">Barney</param>
<param class="java.lang.String">Betty</param>
</param>
</arg>
</xmlet>
I've also used it in another fashion to allow me to mark certain MBeans
as 'critical' and others as optional.
Instead of using
<xmlet> ... </xmlet>
I use
<critical> ... </critical> and <optional> ... </optional>
We will be able to group MBeans into functional groups
<xmlet id="DBBean"> ... </xmlet>
<xmlet id="JMSBean"> ... </xmlet>
<xmlet id="EmailBean"> ... </xmlet>
<xmlet id="TomcatBean"> ... </xmlet>
<functionalGroup name="Group1">
<critical mbeans="DBBean,JMSBean"/>
<optional mbeans="EmailBean"/>
</functionalGroup>
<functionalGroup name="Group2">
<critical mbeans="TomcatBean,JMSBean"/>
<optional mbeans="EmailBean,DBBean"/>
</functionalGroup>
I could go on, but I've already become boring :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Lemoine David-dlemoi01 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 April 2001 10:31
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Custom startup solved !? was: Nested JMX
Service Groups...??!
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
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
