So the only real issue is another interface when not using standardmbeans.
I think that is minor compaired to the benifits. Thanks for checking
the performance though. I was not sure how dyamic proxy performed anyways.
--jason
Andreas Schaefer wrote:
>Hi Geeks
>
>After a simple test with direct JMX calls and MBeanProxy it seems
>to be that both work without a considerably difference. So reflection
>performance is out the door.
>
>>My 2 cents: Keep the MBeanProxy, why?? CUZ i'm lazy. Are you going to
>>
>force
>
>>me to do invoke("print", new Object[String.class] {}, new String[]
>>
>{"hi"});
>
>>for a feaking print("hi");!!!! Get out of here.
>>If I know ahead of time that the object is going to have the method, why
>>can't I use an MBeanProxy with the interface that I know it must have?
>>(Reflection performance not being an issue.)
>>
>
>Believe me I am lazy, too. But only when I doesn't hurt me otherwise.
>
>Andy
>
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
