If we go this route, do we still need the annotations in cxf-common? The only references to them that I see are on the work manager. Anyone know about this code?
- Dan On 1/26/07, Soltysik, Seumas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good point. Using Spring to define the JMX interface definitely is easier and makes more sense. -----Original Message----- From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Managing (JMX) Configuration/Policy Beans Is this information we really want to keep in our schemas? Spring provides an approach where you can control the MBean interface through the MBeanInfoAssembler interface. There are multiple implementations including one where we can just specify what methods should be exposed as attributes in the spring.xml: http://static.springframework.org/spring/docs/2.0.x/reference/jmx.html http://static.springframework.org/spring/docs/2.0.x/reference/jmx.html#jmx-interface - Dan On 1/26/07, Soltysik, Seumas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It seems like it would be a good idea to be able to modify certain runtime > attributes associated with the config/policy Spring Beans via JMX. Since > only certain attributes make sense to modify at runtime, only these certain > attributes should be exposed via an MBean. Could we integrate the > information regarding which attributes should be exposed by annotating the > existing schemas for the policies and then modifying the JAXB code generator > to add JMX annotations to the appropriate getter/setter methods? This way we > can ensure that only certain appropriate values can be changed via JMX. > > -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
-- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
