My indian bosses at SUN couldn't pronounce "FLEURY" (which sounds like
flurry in english) and called me "marc fury"... even back then at SUN I was
stirring up a storm (but noone was listening back then)
you are now calling me the "marc furor"?
|Whatever... the JBoss gestapo is back =P
marcf
I think two servers would make it easier to keep users from screwing by
providing a clear seperation.
--jason
Juha Lindfors wrote:
>>that's great but why 2 servers. Can't we just keep
>>the two views and the single resource?
>>
>
>yes you can... it is a matter of taste I guess. Do you want to
On 2002.02.20 20:55:44 -0500 marc fleury wrote:
> |I think an argument for keeping it in one mbean server is that the admin
> |interface needs to affect the operational interface. e.g., when an
> mbean
> |representing an ejb is "Stopped", ejb invocations should be blocked
> |somehow. I think thi
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jason
>|Dillon
>|Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 4:39 PM
>|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Multipule MBeanServers
>|
>|
>|I would agree if we could vary the interfaces, ie. specify one mbean
>|interface for the inter-component bus and one
riday, February 15, 2002 3:36 PM
>|To: Trevor Squires
>|Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Multipule MBeanServers
>|
>|
>|Do you know if there are any other standard bus-like frameworks out
>|there, which could be used here instead of jmx, leaving jmx free for
>|a
|I think an argument for keeping it in one mbean server is that the admin
|interface needs to affect the operational interface. e.g., when an mbean
|representing an ejb is "Stopped", ejb invocations should be blocked
|somehow. I think this can best be done entirely in interceptors:
|communicatio
On 2002.02.20 15:39:01 -0500 Juha Lindfors wrote:
> > that's great but why 2 servers. Can't we just keep
> > the two views and the single resource?
>
> yes you can... it is a matter of taste I guess. Do you want to
> differentiate your MBeans by object names (different names for same
> service de
, February 20, 2002 12:10 PM
|To: marc fleury; Jason Dillon; Trevor Squires
|Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Multipule MBeanServers
|
|
|Hi
|
|This is not necessary because JSR-77 is taking over the management
|part.
|
|Andy
|
|> |Do you know if there are any other standard bus-l
> that's great but why 2 servers. Can't we just keep
> the two views and the single resource?
yes you can... it is a matter of taste I guess. Do you want to differentiate your
MBeans by object names (different names for same service depending on view) or do you
want to use the same object name
Hi
This is not necessary because JSR-77 is taking over the management
part.
Andy
> |Do you know if there are any other standard bus-like frameworks out
> |there, which could be used here instead of jmx, leaving jmx free for
> |admin only?
> |
> |--jason
_
g on me.
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Juha
|Lindfors
|Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 8:25 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Multipule MBeanServers
|
|
|
|MBeanServer adminServer = MBeanServerFactory.cr
y, February 15, 2002 4:54 PM
|To: Jason Dillon
|Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Multipule MBeanServers
|
|
|
|This seems like a strange question - is there anything missing from JMX
|that you want or are you just wanting to partition the two functions of
|managment and glue?
|
|B
, February 15, 2002 4:39 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Multipule MBeanServers
|
|
|I would agree if we could vary the interfaces, ie. specify one mbean
|interface for the inter-component bus and one for admin.
|
|--jason
|
|
|On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 16:25, Scott M Stark wrote:
|> T
don't even think about it
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jason
|Dillon
|Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 3:36 PM
|To: Trevor Squires
|Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Multipule MBeanServers
|
|
|Do you kn
This is brilliant! My poor fingers are too tired to comment further at
the moment... but brilliant I tell you!
--jason
On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 20:25, Juha Lindfors wrote:
>
> MBeanServer adminServer = MBeanServerFactory.createMBeanServer();
> MBeanServer compServer = MBeanServerFactory.createMB
MBeanServer adminServer = MBeanServerFactory.createMBeanServer();
MBeanServer compServer = MBeanServerFactory.createMBeanServer();
MyService service = new MyService();
ModelMBean admin = new ModelMBean();
admin.setModelMBeanInfo(adminInterface);
admin.setManagedResource(service);
adminServer.reg
I was just looking to see what was out there... or more specifically
what ours have found.
It does seem like it is lacking some communication features, for dealing
with standard types that is. The other thing would be that most users
think they have to use the basic types for everything, thus
This seems like a strange question - is there anything missing from JMX
that you want or are you just wanting to partition the two functions of
managment and glue?
By the way, I used to think that JMX should *only* be used for management
but I think it was one of your emails a long time ago (tha
Ahh haa... can you elaborate your thinking on this?
--jason
On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 17:26, Juha Lindfors wrote:
> why not use two model mbeans with different interfaces for the same resource?
>
> -- Juha
>
>
> > I would agree if we could vary the interfaces, ie.
> > specify one mbean
> > inter
why not use two model mbeans with different interfaces for the same resource?
-- Juha
> I would agree if we could vary the interfaces, ie.
> specify one mbean
> interface for the inter-component bus and one for
> admin.
>
> --jason
>
_
I would agree if we could vary the interfaces, ie. specify one mbean
interface for the inter-component bus and one for admin.
--jason
On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 16:25, Scott M Stark wrote:
> This sounds like a good example for using two MBeanServers. One for administration
>and one for messaging be
This sounds like a good example for using two MBeanServers. One for administration and
one for messaging between components.
_
View thread online: http://main.jboss.org/thread.jsp?forum=66&thread=8538
_
Do you know if there are any other standard bus-like frameworks out
there, which could be used here instead of jmx, leaving jmx free for
admin only?
--jason
On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 15:06, Trevor Squires wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> It would seem the best qualified to answer would be on the jmx-forum lis
> However, if you want an opinion, the quickest answer I can contrive is for
> application partitioning, especially when assembling an
> application/subsystem management view using MBeans from multiple vendors.
I was thinking about this, along the lines of giving non-jboss mbeans a
separate serve
Hey,
It would seem the best qualified to answer would be on the jmx-forum list.
However, if you want an opinion, the quickest answer I can contrive is for
application partitioning, especially when assembling an
application/subsystem management view using MBeans from multiple vendors.
One thing
25 matches
Mail list logo
