qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "lahiru gunathilake" <glah...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: GSoC - Lahiru's CLI for JMX
Date Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:20:31 GMT
Hi Marnie and Aidan,

Now I have complete my implementation for list command with all the objects
which you have instrumented inside the broker.(Now you can use the list
command to monitor the basic information in a way you do using Jconsole). If
you can clearly specify what else you want to monitor with list command then
I can write some code in to Qpid and instrument them and write some more
code to CLI and monitor those information too.

Or I can start working with the report generation mode from now onwards.
What do you think please advice me on this what should I do next.


On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:24 AM, lahiru gunathilake <glahiru@gmail.com>

> hi Aidan,
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:15 PM, lahiru gunathilake <glahiru@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi Aidan,
>> Yep I can understand what you are saying. I was mostly concentrated on
>> making more simpler thing to add new commands. My approach is good when we
>> go for new commands.
>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Aidan Skinner <aidan@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>> so, as I was attempting to say just then, I've had a quick look at
>>> your code and it looks pretty good. I would probably be tempted to add
>>> functionality by object type rather than command type, putting methods
>>> into the Command interface for listing, getting info etc and then
>>> subclassing that for Queues, Exchanges and so on. That way you only
>>> have to edit one file when you add a new type
>> Yep but that is only with a single command.
> yes I thought of implementing in this way and now the code is more
> elegant(but not like the same way you are saying slightly different way).
> Could you please have a look at the code in the SVN.
> Thanks Aidan for pointing this out.I'm really happy with the new
> implementation :-)
> Regards
> Lahiru
>> If we are going to add some more methods to the interactive mode it's
>> going to be difficult. But if we are not going to add more and more commands
>> that approach would be useful.
>> What do you thing if you want me to implement in other way around I will
>> go ahead with that.
>>> and it's clearer what
>>> you need to implement when adding support for a new object.
>>> I haven't had a chance to actually run it yet, I'll do that later today.
>>> it was good talking to you, I hope next time we'll be able to hear
>>> each other properly! :)
>> yeah sure and you know English is not my mother tongue and your accent is
>> not very much clear for me. I'm very sorry for that next time I will be able
>> to hear you. And if you are feel free to call me on a week end I you can
>> call me to my home land line and I will be able to hear you clearly.
>> Any thoughts
>> Thanks
>> Lahiru
>>> - Aidan
>>> --
>>> aim/y!:aidans42 g:aidan.skinner@gmail.com <g%3Aaidan.skinner@gmail.com>
>>> http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/
>>> "We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to
>>> each other."

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message