On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:52, Peter Donald wrote: > In most cases I consider JMX great for coarser grained components. In the > end JMX is just the naming/plumbing part of "application server". I think > it is great from a management perspective and for starting up coarse > grained components but I don't think it works for fine grained components. > In coarse grain components the slight overhead causes no worrys.
A few people have asked me to describe what the difference is between coarse and fine grained components. However I don't think there is any hard and fast rules for that. I guess I see things that are mostly "standalone" components as things that would be candidates for JMX deployment/management. ie * web server * mail server * directory server * database server Most of them are relatively independent from each other. Interesting scenarios happen when you incorporate components such as a web interface to directory server. This "component" depends upon both the web server and directory server components. I would still make it controllable by JMX but it would be the deployer or the unit itself that would have to manage dependencies. -- Cheers, Peter Donald -------------------------------------------- Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin -------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
