On 6/5/13 3:55 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
class A extends B { ...}
>class B implements AMBean {...}
Yes, I see it now. However, when you check the JMX specification, page
50 onwards, the current implementation does not seem to be correct.
"3. If MyClass is an instance of the DynamicMBean interface, then
MyClassMBean is
ignored. If MyClassMBean is not a public interface, it is not a JMX
manageable
resource. If the MBean is an instance of neither MyClassMBean nor
DynamicMBean, the inheritance tree of MyClass is examined, looking for the
nearest superclass that implements its own MBean interface.
a. If there is an ancestor called SuperClass that is an instance of
SuperClassMBean, the design patterns are used to derive the attributes and
operations from SuperClassMBean. In this case, the MBean MyClass then
has the same management interface as the MBean SuperClass. If
SuperClassMBean is not a public interface, it is not a JMX manageable
resource.
b. When there is no superclass with its own MBean interface, MyClass is
not a
Standard MBean."
According to the specification the correct MBean interface for
class A extends B { ...}
class B implements BMBean, AMBean
would be BMBean
Hi Jaroslav,
Given that A is an instance of AMBean I think that according to the
specification the correct interface should be AMBean.
It's true that the JMX Specification does not explicitly speak of this
case - but neither does it forbid it.
My advice would therefore be to clarify the spec on this point,
if that's needed - rather than risking the introduction of
incompatibilities.
-- daniel
and for
class A extends B { ...}
class B implements AMBean {...}
is not defined; neither B or A are manageable resources.
As I said, the jtreg and jck test does not seem to mind which
implementation is used, they all pass happily. I would prefer bringing
the implementation in sync with the specification.
-JB-
