Peter Donald wrote: > > Thought 4) > > > > Phoenix does not currently provide a configuration method that allows the > > user to execute/make available arbitrary JMX-compliant beans. That is > > precisely the problem that the <mbean> format is designed to solve. That > > format is actually directly competing with Phoenix's own methods of > > configuration, just without inherent support for features like the Avalon > > lifecycle (which could easily be made available). It is a separate and > > complete solution -- why make it dependant on Phoenix configuration files? > > Not sure what you mean. In the future it will hopefully be possible to > integrate into other systems much easier. This includes being able to process > these mbean files.
I was just speculating that you could completely configure Phoenix with nothing but the sort of <mbean> records in JBoss. All it would take is a) The requirement that all Avalon/Phoenix managed objects have an MBean interface. The MBean interface would be the place where support for Avalon lifecycle interfaces is declared (i.e. class MyBlock implements MyBlockMBean, and interface MBlockMBean extends Startable, Initializable, etc.) b) A prefix for the ObjectName that makes it clear something is to be managed by Avalon. Example: <mbean code="pak.FooService" name="phoenix.block:service=FooService"> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
