aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JMX whiteboard project
Date Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:19:51 GMT
Hi,

Am Montag, den 27.06.2011, 20:07 +0100 schrieb Alasdair Nottingham: 
> Hi,
> 
> I've been looking at the way the whiteboard implementation works and I was
> wondering if it would make sense to change the way it detects mbeans.
> Currently it detects them by looking for:
> 
> (objectClass=*MBean). The impl then needs to either have a jmx.objectname
> property, or it needs to be javax.management.MBeanRegistration extension. I

My idea for requiring some MBean interface is that it makes registration
extremely easy:

- either it is a DynamicMBean (or some extension thereof) service
- or it is an interface with MBean suffix which as per the spec
   defines the MBean interface for the bean

For the registration then only an ObjectName is required which can be
provided as a service registration property or by implementing the
MBeanRegistration interface (which is also similarly used in the spec
IIRC).


> think it would make more sense for a service filter like this:
> 
> (|(objectClass=javax.management.MBeanRegistration)(jmx.objectname=))
> 
> what do people think?

By going that way, you will solve the second issue with the filter but
you then have an MBean where you have to find out how to be able to
register (or I may be missing something in more recent JMX specs).

But then, I don't think we should require the MBeanRegistration
interface as a service interface. Sounds kind of incorrect.

All in all, I think the original filter sounds more correct.

Regards
Felix

> Alasdair
> 



Mime
View raw message