Re: J2EE Management for JEE 5

[anita kulshreshtha]

   The Stats interfaces are not mandatory. but all the Managed objects as per  JSR77.3 are. JSR77.3 reads :
"This chapter contains the models and metamodels that specify the format,
semantics and relationship of the managed objects required by all compliant
implementations of this specification."
    I think that according to this the Servlet would be a required Managed objects. But the tomcat version of G is certified without this. What does compliance really mean? If J2EEDeployedObject was missing, would tck complain?

Thanks
Anita

"Christopher M. Cardona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Anita,


I agree it would be nice to have these statistic interfaces implemented
so we can provide performance data. I’m not sure if this is even
required for JEE 5. I assume it’s not because we didn’t implement it for
J2EE 1.4. ...............................................................................

 I personally wanted
to work on the JEE 5 compliance issues first so we can make tiny steps
to our JEE 5 goals. .....................................................................

Best wishes,
chris

anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> Chris,
> As you said, there is not much to do in upgrading JSR77 from 1.0 to
> 1.1. However it would be nice to have some of the missing things
> implemented in 1.0. We could provide implementation of the following
> interfaces:
> EJBStats.java
> EntityBeanStats.java
> JCAConnectionPoolStats.java
> JCAConnectionStats.java
> JCAStats.java
> JDBCConnectionPoolStats.java
> JDBCConnectionStats.java
> JDBCStats.java
> JMSConnectionStats.java
> JMSConsumerStats.java
> JMSEndpointStats.java
> JMSProducerStats.java
> JMSSessionStats.java
> JMSStats.java
> JTAStats.java
> JVMStats.java
> JavaMailStats.java
> MessageDrivenBeanStats.java
> ServletStats.java
> SessionBeanStats.java
> StatefulSessionBeanStats.java
> StatelessSessionBeanStats.java
> URLStats.java
> Some of these interfaces might be already implemented. I am aware of
> JVMStatsImpl. In that case we should enable the 'stastisticsProvider'
> attribute of the ManagedObject.
>
> Thanks,
> Anita
>
> */"Christopher M. Cardona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
>
> I’m currently investigating what it would take to update our J2EE
> Management (JSR 77) implementation for compliance with JEE 5 in
> Geronimo. Looking at the changes between spec releases 1.0 (June 18,
> 2002) and 1.1 (June 22, 2006) there are 4 items that changed:
>
> 1. JSR77.4.2.1.3 will be/ changed from "sequence" to/
> "sequenceNumber" -
> This is just a typo error change.
>
> 2. JSR77.3.5.0.1 the deploymentDescriptor attribute must provide a
> full
> deployment descriptor based on any partial deployment descriptor plus
> deployment annotations.
>
> 3. JSR77.9.1 J2EE Management CIM. The Managed Object Format (MOF) and
> UML representation of the model are available from the Distributed
> Management Task Force (DMTF) web site:
> http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim
>
> 4. JSR77.9.6 Appendix (CIM - Common Information Model) pages
> 190-214 removed
>
> Here’s the link to the spec change log:
> http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/maintenance/jsr077/JSR77_MR.html
>
> My first question is do we even have to update our current JSR 77
> implementation to become JEE 5 compliant. If the spec changes are
> all we
> need to consider then it looks like only item 2 needs some attention
> since item 1 is just a typo error correction and items 3 and 4 are
> related to CIM which we didn’t implement. I’m not even sure if we
> need
> to do anything with item 2 like checking for deployment descriptor
> value. Are there any other changes that I need to consider? Please
> let
> me know if I am missing anything. Any suggestions, ideas, and
> concerns
> are welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> chris
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call
> rates.
>

---

Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.