Hi Seumas, sorry I did not follow the previous discussion of "JMX Changes" very 
closely, I should have raised this concern early. I believe there is still one 
concern needs to be addressed, which was mentioned by Willem, but has not been 
paid enough attention to. 

Basically, I agree it is possible to simply how CXF instrumentation works by 
removing EventProcessor/EventListener, but I think we still need a good 
discussion to decide whether or not we should make the core of CXF 
instrumentation depends on JMX directly. CXF instrumentation was inherited from 
Celtix, one of core concepts of Celtix instrumentation design is 
"Instrumentation will have no hard dependency on any specific management 
protocols, such as JMX", see [1]. To be honest, I am not sure if this is an 
over design, as Celtix only has JMX supported anyway at the end of day, and I 
do not see CXF has any immediate requirement to support management protocols 
other than JMX, such as SNMP and WSDM. But this kind of capability definitely 
appears interesting to me, and it is worth a good consideration during the 
design, though the "common management model" approach proposed by Celtix may 
not be the only way to achieve the goal. Back to couple months ago, I was 
involved in a discussion in Tuscany on the topic of SCA management where they 
have a requirement to support both JMX and WSDM for Tuscany, see [2] [3] [4].


[1]. https://wiki.objectweb.org/celtix/Wiki.jsp?page=ManamgentDevPlan

[2]. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03625.html

[3]. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg04025.html

[4]. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg04025.html

Cheers,
Jervis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Soltysik, Seumas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 2007?2?16? 7:32
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Review of patch for CXF-427 [JMX]
> 
> 
> I just uploaded a patch file for Jira CXF-427 which involves 
> a refactoring of the current JMX infrastructure. Could 
> someone take a look at this patch and apply it if deemed sufficient.
> Thanks,
> Seumas
> 

Reply via email to