Re: J2EE Management for JEE 5
The Stats interfaces are not mandatory. but all the Managed objects as per JSR77.3 are. JSR77.3 reads :"This chapter contains the models and metamodels that specify the format,semantics and relationship of the managed objects required by all compliantimplementations of this specification." I think that according to this the Servlet would be a required Managed objects. But the tomcat version of G is certified without this. What does compliance really mean? If J2EEDeployedObject was missing, would tck complain? ThanksAnita"Christopher M. Cardona" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anita,I agree it would be nice to have these statistic interfaces implemented so we can provide performance data. Im not sure if this is even required for JEE 5. I assume its not because we didnt implement it for J2EE 1.4. ...I personally wanted to work on the JEE 5 compliance issues first so we can make tiny steps to our JEE 5 goals. .Best wishes,chrisanita kulshreshtha wrote: Chris, As you said, there is not much to do in upgrading JSR77 from 1.0 to 1.1. However it would be nice to have some of the missing things implemented in 1.0. We could provide implementation of the following interfaces: EJBStats.java EntityBeanStats.java JCAConnectionPoolStats.java JCAConnectionStats.java JCAStats.java JDBCConnectionPoolStats.java JDBCConnectionStats.java JDBCStats.java JMSConnectionStats.java JMSConsumerStats.java JMSEndpointStats.java JMSProducerStats.java JMSSessionStats.java JMSStats.java JTAStats.java JVMStats.java JavaMailStats.java MessageDrivenBeanStats.java ServletStats.java SessionBeanStats.java StatefulSessionBeanStats.java StatelessSessionBeanStats.java URLStats.java Some of these interfaces might be already implemented. I am aware of JVMStatsImpl. In that case we should enable the 'stastisticsProvider' attribute of the ManagedObject. Thanks, Anita */"Christopher M. Cardona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: Im currently investigating what it would take to update our J2EE Management (JSR 77) implementation for compliance with JEE 5 in Geronimo. Looking at the changes between spec releases 1.0 (June 18, 2002) and 1.1 (June 22, 2006) there are 4 items that changed: 1. JSR77.4.2.1.3 will be/ changed from "sequence" to/ "sequenceNumber" - This is just a typo error change. 2. JSR77.3.5.0.1 the deploymentDescriptor attribute must provide a full deployment descriptor based on any partial deployment descriptor plus deployment annotations. 3. JSR77.9.1 J2EE Management CIM. The Managed Object Format (MOF) and UML representation of the model are available from the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF) web site: http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim 4. JSR77.9.6 Appendix (CIM - Common Information Model) pages 190-214 removed Heres the link to the spec change log: http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/maintenance/jsr077/JSR77_MR.html My first question is do we even have to update our current JSR 77 implementation to become JEE 5 compliant. If the spec changes are all we need to consider then it looks like only item 2 needs some attention since item 1 is just a typo error correction and items 3 and 4 are related to CIM which we didnt implement. Im not even sure if we need to do anything with item 2 like checking for deployment descriptor value. Are there any other changes that I need to consider? Please let me know if I am missing anything. Any suggestions, ideas, and concerns are welcome. Thanks, chris How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates. Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
Re: J2EE Management for JEE 5
I looked at the patch attached to GERONIMO-1701. It does not implement EJBStats as defined in JSR77.6.11. Am I missing something?ThanksAnita"Christopher M. Cardona" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anita,...I created an EJBModuleStats for the EJB Server portlet patch I submitted a few months ago. Im not sure if this is even required for JEE 5. All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
Re: J2EE Management for JEE 5
I think I remember saying EJBModuleStats not EJBStats. The initial statistics I wanted to provide for the EJB Server portlet is on the EJBModule level not on the EJB level. This patch can be enhanced by adding EJB stats. Best wishes, chris anita kulshreshtha wrote: I looked at the patch attached to GERONIMO-1701. It does not implement EJBStats as defined in JSR77.6.11. Am I missing something? Thanks Anita */Christopher M. Cardona [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Anita, ... I created an EJBModuleStats for the EJB Server portlet patch I submitted a few months ago. I’m not sure if this is even required for JEE 5. All-new Yahoo! Mail http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43256/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta- Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
Re: J2EE Management for JEE 5
"Christopher M. Cardona" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I remember saying "EJBModuleStats" not "EJBStats". The initial statistics I wanted to provide for the EJB Server portlet is on the EJBModule level not on the EJB level. This patch can be enhanced by adding EJB stats.Best wishes,chrisanita kulshreshtha wrote: I looked at the patch attached to GERONIMO-1701. It does not implement EJBStats as defined in JSR77.6.11. Am I missing something? Thanks Anita */"Christopher M. Cardona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: Anita, ... I created an EJBModuleStats for the EJB Server portlet patch I submitted a few months ago. Im not sure if this is even required for JEE 5.EJBModuleStats is certainly not required by JEE 5 or J2EE 1.4ThanksAnita Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
Re: J2EE Management for JEE 5
anita kulshreshtha wrote: */Christopher M. Cardona [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: I think I remember saying EJBModuleStats not EJBStats. The initial statistics I wanted to provide for the EJB Server portlet is on the EJBModule level not on the EJB level. This patch can be enhanced by adding EJB stats. Best wishes, chris anita kulshreshtha wrote: I looked at the patch attached to GERONIMO-1701. It does not implement EJBStats as defined in JSR77.6.11. Am I missing something? Thanks Anita */Christopher M. Cardona /* wrote: Anita, ... I created an EJBModuleStats for the EJB Server portlet patch I submitted a few months ago. I’m not sure if this is even required for JEE 5. EJBModuleStats is certainly not required by JEE 5 or J2EE 1.4 I concur. Best wishes, chris Thanks Anita Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42974/*http://www.yahoo.com/preview
Re: J2EE Management for JEE 5
Chris, As you said, there is not much to do in upgrading JSR77 from 1.0 to 1.1. However it would be nice to have some of the missing things implemented in 1.0. We could provide implementation of the following interfaces:EJBStats.javaEntityBeanStats.java JCAConnectionPoolStats.javaJCAConnectionStats.java JCAStats.javaJDBCConnectionPoolStats.java JDBCConnectionStats.javaJDBCStats.java JMSConnectionStats.javaJMSConsumerStats.java JMSEndpointStats.javaJMSProducerStats.java JMSSessionStats.javaJMSStats.java JTAStats.javaJVMStats.java JavaMailStats.javaMessageDrivenBeanStats.java ServletStats.java SessionBeanStats.javaStatefulSessionBeanStats.java StatelessSessionBeanStats.javaURLStats.java Some of these interfaces might be already implemented. I am aware of JVMStatsImpl. In that case we should enable the 'stastisticsProvider' attribute of the ManagedObject. Thanks,Anita"Christopher M. Cardona" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im currently investigating what it would take to update our J2EE Management (JSR 77) implementation for compliance with JEE 5 in Geronimo. Looking at the changes between spec releases 1.0 (June 18, 2002) and 1.1 (June 22, 2006) there are 4 items that changed:1. JSR77.4.2.1.3 will be/ changed from "sequence" to/ "sequenceNumber" - This is just a typo error change.2. JSR77.3.5.0.1 the deploymentDescriptor attribute must provide a full deployment descriptor based on any partial deployment descriptor plus deployment annotations.3. JSR77.9.1 J2EE Management CIM. The Managed Object Format (MOF) and UML representation of the model are available from the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF) web site: http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim4. JSR77.9.6 Appendix (CIM - Common Information Model) pages 190-214 removedHeres the link to the spec change log: http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/maintenance/jsr077/JSR77_MR.htmlMy first question is do we even have to update our current JSR 77 implementation to become JEE 5 compliant. If the spec changes are all we need to consider then it looks like only item 2 needs some attention since item 1 is just a typo error correction and items 3 and 4 are related to CIM which we didnt implement. Im not even sure if we need to do anything with item 2 like checking for deployment descriptor value. Are there any other changes that I need to consider? Please let me know if I am missing anything. Any suggestions, ideas, and concerns are welcome.Thanks,chris How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Re: J2EE Management for JEE 5
On Oct 24, 2006, at 10:45 PM, Christopher M. Cardona wrote: 2. JSR77.3.5.0.1 the deploymentDescriptor attribute must provide a full deployment descriptor based on any partial deployment descriptor plus deployment annotations. That doesn't sound like it will be easy. Do they mean that you must build a full deployment descriptor backwards out of the annotations? My first question is do we even have to update our current JSR 77 implementation to become JEE 5 compliant. JSR 77 is a weird spec in that is had very few Java APIs specified. The bulk of the spec described the names of fields and operations to be exposed via JMX. You should check if the Java APIs were updated for Java5 generics. -dain
Re: J2EE Management for JEE 5
Anita, I agree it would be nice to have these statistic interfaces implemented so we can provide performance data. IIRC somebody created a patch that uses ServletStats and I created an EJBModuleStats for the EJB Server portlet patch I submitted a few months ago. I’m not sure if this is even required for JEE 5. I assume it’s not because we didn’t implement it for J2EE 1.4. We can definitely put cycles to this but I personally wanted to work on the JEE 5 compliance issues first so we can make tiny steps to our JEE 5 goals. If you want to start working on JSR 77 performance monitoring you can go ahead. Best wishes, chris anita kulshreshtha wrote: Chris, As you said, there is not much to do in upgrading JSR77 from 1.0 to 1.1. However it would be nice to have some of the missing things implemented in 1.0. We could provide implementation of the following interfaces: EJBStats.java EntityBeanStats.java JCAConnectionPoolStats.java JCAConnectionStats.java JCAStats.java JDBCConnectionPoolStats.java JDBCConnectionStats.java JDBCStats.java JMSConnectionStats.java JMSConsumerStats.java JMSEndpointStats.java JMSProducerStats.java JMSSessionStats.java JMSStats.java JTAStats.java JVMStats.java JavaMailStats.java MessageDrivenBeanStats.java ServletStats.java SessionBeanStats.java StatefulSessionBeanStats.java StatelessSessionBeanStats.java URLStats.java Some of these interfaces might be already implemented. I am aware of JVMStatsImpl. In that case we should enable the 'stastisticsProvider' attribute of the ManagedObject. Thanks, Anita */Christopher M. Cardona [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: I’m currently investigating what it would take to update our J2EE Management (JSR 77) implementation for compliance with JEE 5 in Geronimo. Looking at the changes between spec releases 1.0 (June 18, 2002) and 1.1 (June 22, 2006) there are 4 items that changed: 1. JSR77.4.2.1.3 will be/ changed from sequence to/ sequenceNumber - This is just a typo error change. 2. JSR77.3.5.0.1 the deploymentDescriptor attribute must provide a full deployment descriptor based on any partial deployment descriptor plus deployment annotations. 3. JSR77.9.1 J2EE Management CIM. The Managed Object Format (MOF) and UML representation of the model are available from the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF) web site: http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim 4. JSR77.9.6 Appendix (CIM - Common Information Model) pages 190-214 removed Here’s the link to the spec change log: http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/maintenance/jsr077/JSR77_MR.html My first question is do we even have to update our current JSR 77 implementation to become JEE 5 compliant. If the spec changes are all we need to consider then it looks like only item 2 needs some attention since item 1 is just a typo error correction and items 3 and 4 are related to CIM which we didn’t implement. I’m not even sure if we need to do anything with item 2 like checking for deployment descriptor value. Are there any other changes that I need to consider? Please let me know if I am missing anything. Any suggestions, ideas, and concerns are welcome. Thanks, chris How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE Management for JEE 5
Dain Sundstrom wrote: JSR 77 is a weird spec in that is had very few Java APIs specified. The bulk of the spec described the names of fields and operations to be exposed via JMX. You should check if the Java APIs were updated for Java5 generics. JSR 77 is a weird spec! As I was just looking at Chris' note and the spec I was surprised to see that most of the fundamental interfaces (like J2EEManagedObject and J2EEServer) are only defined within our implementation (modules/geronimo-management) and not included in our version of the management spec. It seems that only the JSR 77 statistics types are included as interfaces in our version of the spec. This makes me wonder about the specs that I signed up for which are newly included in Java EE 5 (JSTL and Annotations). Is it correct to assume that we should only include interface definitions from the specs if they were explicitly called out (such as with package names) or called out in an API section of the specification? The JSTL spec includes an API section that includes not only interfaces but also abstract and other classes. I was planning to just use Glassfish for JSTL and pick up their spec jar as part of the package rather than creating a Geronimo named spec jar. Does that make sense? The Annotations spec has package qualified annotation interfaces declared in the spec. It appears that somebody (DBlevins?) has already created most of these in our specs tree. Thanks, Joe
Re: J2EE Management for JEE 5
Dain Sundstrom wrote: On Oct 24, 2006, at 10:45 PM, Christopher M. Cardona wrote: 2. JSR77.3.5.0.1 the deploymentDescriptor attribute must provide a full deployment descriptor based on any partial deployment descriptor plus deployment annotations. That doesn't sound like it will be easy. Do they mean that you must build a full deployment descriptor backwards out of the annotations? I’m not exactly sure how to interpret it either. Looks like the objective is to make sure the value for 'deploymentDescriptor' attribute of J2EEDeployedObject is always set to the combined or full DD (partial DD plus deployment annotations). Our current implementation passes the DD values to the constructors of the concrete classes that implement J2EEDeployedObject. So my guess is checking and manipulation of DD should be done inside the classes that call those constructors. Thoughts? My first question is do we even have to update our current JSR 77 implementation to become JEE 5 compliant. JSR 77 is a weird spec in that is had very few Java APIs specified. The bulk of the spec described the names of fields and operations to be exposed via JMX. You should check if the Java APIs were updated for Java5 generics. Looking at the latest specs there are no API changes. I’ll update this thread if I find anything… Thanks, chris -dain
