On Sun, 9 Sep 2001 05:10, Mircea Toma wrote: > > So Type 1 (kernel et al) management can be done via normal JMX > > mechanisms. > > It > > > includes the actions you list above (ie start/stop/deploy/undeploy/etc) > > This is my opinion too! There are some problems still with the methods that > don't have 'primitive'/'primitive wrapper' arguments, like the "deploy" for > example. > > > while > > Type 2 (Blocks et al) is different altogether. For Type 2 management > > there > > is > > > essentially two facets - management of Configuration tree and management > > of a > > > custom management interface that a Block can choose to export. > > .. the problem is how to do it: > 1) manage the Configuration trees that are stored in the repository > 2) something that Leo recommended, having a DynamicMBean that takes the > Block, its manageable interfaces and its Configuration > > Solution 1, which I prefer is separating the "configuration" management > from the "action" management. For the "action" management the > implementation is there (Leo's JMX stuff). The "configuration" management > can be done by changing the configuration trees stored in the Repository, > the Block-s that will implement Reconfigurable interface will receive > automatically the new configuration (assuming that the "monitor" package > will be used).
+1 But I would like Blocks to be able to export their own interface aswell if they so choose. However that can be left till "later" ;) -- Cheers, Pete ------------------------------ Kitsch never goes out of style ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
