Sounds good! On Friday, October 16, 2009, David Bosschaert <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > The offer still stands :) I can try to get it refactored next week. If I > don't have it ready in time, we can always put it in a later release... > > David > > 2009/10/16 Eoghan Glynn <eogl...@gmail.com> > >> It would be quite useful to have the AdminServiceMBean.getInstances() >> operation exposed, as it would allow for remote probing that a particular >> instance has been successfully started. I'm thinking of a scenario where >> this probe is done programmatically via JMX/RMI as opposed to manually >> using >> some tooling like jconsole. We have an application where we create >> instances >> remotely in order to run some tests, hence the need to probe for the >> readiness of each new instance. >> >> Cheers, >> Eoghan >> >> 2009/10/16 Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com> >> >> > However, if we have time to refactor it very soon, i would certainly >> > have no problem to include it in 1.0.2. >> > What I meant is that I'd rather avoid exposing an mbean which is bound >> > to be refactored in the near future. >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:30, David Bosschaert >> > <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > Okidoki, I'll leave that one for now. >> > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > >> > > David >> > > >> > > 2009/10/15 Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com> >> > > >> > >> Right, I think I've missed that one while refactoring the JMX layer >> > >> for the features service. >> > >> Unless there is a real need for that now, I would defer to 1.2.0 and >> > >> refactor it in a more coarse grained service, the same way we did for >> > >> the FeaturesServiceMBean, so that we'd have a getInstances() method >> > >> that would return a TabularData containing all the informations >> > >> available for a give instance (name, port and state for now). We >> > >> could leave the other methods unchanged. >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 18:09, David Bosschaert >> > >> <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > >> > >> > While looking at FELIX-1655, I noticed that there is actually an >> > >> > AdminServiceMBean in the code, but it doesn't seem to be registered >> > with >> > >> the >> > >> > MBean Server. Is this done deliberately or is this an oversight or >> am >> > I >> > >> > missing it? >> > >> > >> > >> > I think having this controllable through JMX would be useful - I'd >> be >> > >> happy >> > >> > to try an enable this functionality... >> > >> > >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > >> > >> > David >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> Cheers, >> > >> Guillaume Nodet >> > >> ------------------------ >> > >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> > >> ------------------------ >> > >> Open Source SOA >> > >> http://fusesource.com >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Cheers, >> > Guillaume Nodet >> > ------------------------ >> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> > ------------------------ >> > Open Source SOA >> > http://fusesource.com >> > >> >
-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
