> Does this mean that there are hard-coded references > between mbeans? I > think it would be a good idea to convert these to > depends elements in the > mbean configuration (formerly mbean-ref elements) to > make these > dependencies more explicit. What do you think?
Good and bad, don't make it a default (which is what I am reading here). The truth is that while we use JMX to loosely create and configure objects, some islands of objects just live together should we hardcode the links in there (inside the island) or should we expose these links *at the same level of management as we do the rest of the configuration*? the answer is no.. don't, keep the real configuration (that that will change) configurable. These links are explicit in normal java code as we compile against them and pass reference. In JMX we configure objectnames as string, but the fact is that the code flow is mostly always the same and (for example) an EJBDeployer and a SARDeployer will always use the "MainDeployer" (in the new deployer codebase I will commit when I get back to Atlanta). Should we expose that reference for *users* to see and configure? *NO* Hardcoding JMX Object Names references (through the use of MyInterface.OBJECT_NAME as we do today) is in fact the better, more useable solution. Don't expose kernel configuration knowledge in a file that users are supposed to read and configure... marcf ______________________________________________________________________ View this jboss-dev thread in the online forums: http://jboss.org/forums/thread.jsp?forum=66&thread=5570 _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
