[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : They why not use the MBeanServer directly? There is not
much point in having a wrapper on top of the MEJB if the only component that should
access it is in the same vm as the JMX MBeanServer.
Honestly, I have been struggling for this design issue from the very beginning. The
main consideration not using use the MBeanServer is that I want to adhere to the JSR
77 which must be compilied by all J2EE vendors. So it is the portable issue. I assume
that no all the J2EE product support the MeanServer and JMX and even they do, there
are some differences among them. I have been awared that MEJB is not that powerful in
management as MBeanServer in JBoss. The state management for almost all managed
objects are not support in MEJB and start/stop operation can not be invoked through
MEJB.
Frankly, I could be totally wrong for these reasons and assumptions. If you could
correct me and help me to avoid a wrong approach, I would be very appreciated!
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=3847976#3847976
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=3847976
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170
Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on
who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM.
Deadline: Sept. 13. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php
___
JBoss-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
