For the record;
+1 on canonical name as internal string representation
-1 on attempting to preserve whatever string is used to construct the gbean name
+1 on restricting characters in gbean name and assuring that gbean name >> object name conversion always works in a non-surprising manner.
On Feb 23, 2005, at 9:09 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
David Jencks wrote:+1 on canonical name as internal string representation
-1 on attempting to preserve whatever string is used to construct the gbean name
I think the usability value in getting back what you put it is greater than having the keys rearranged on you (given the order of the keys is not significant to the implementation).
Why do you think rearranging them is more usable?
I am making the argument that we MUST have a canonical form, so my question is why must we keep two strings around just to for display purposes.
+1 on restricting characters in gbean name and assuring that gbean name >> object name conversion always works in a non-surprising manner.
The restrictions on characters in ObjectName and the subsequent quoting mechanism are a consequence of the overloading between values and patterns. If we simplify the API and get rid of the latter then we no longer need any additional restrictions inside Geronimo.
There is a clear conversion between a GBeanName and an ObjectName: any keys or values that contain characters that are illegal in JMX can be quoted and escaped /in JMX/; GBeanNames that are legal ObjectNames can be used as-is.
That is not true. There is no escaping mechanism in ObjectName for domain names and key names, only for key value, so without restricting the type to be a true subset of ObjectName and enforcing that restriction, it would be possible to create names that cannot be represented in JMX.
-dain
