On Feb 8, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote:
I think Jules has a point on this. What about the use of other open source projects that manage their own private mbean lifecycles, such as Tomcat?
and not forgetting Jetty :-), which also exposes internals to JMX in this way - relevant parts of which, I expect, implement the relevant J2EE JSRs and would want to be made available to suitable tooling.
If all goes well with a proxy approach, this fn-ality will go into the Spring integration anyway, with a switch to disable it for the faint-hearted. So, either way, the kernel will be managing POJOs whose life-cycle it does not control. It's just a matter of how complex the code has to be and how many levels of proxy we want...
This is why we replaced the Jetty life cycle in geronimo it just doesn't fit. With the exception of Jetty and Tomcat we have not had trouble managing the life-cycle of any other projects.
-dain
