Hi Supun, You are welcome! Regarding my second point I think you are still able to deliver some details, if you really like. If I remember correctly there are actually three attributes type, message and userData, type and message being String and type being Object. So you can still use userData to add more detail which should not go into the message. The only thing is that the type of the user data should be some standard Object and not some custom type. It has been a while since I last looked into this, but you may at least want to check this…
Regarding my first point I assumed you would already have some user requirements in mind as most of the time this is the starting point… I’m not quite sure if all users really do need this capability at all, although I really see its value. So at least I would expect a switch to turn this feature completely on and off (also as part of an initial implementation). The decision about activating the feature by default, or having the user to activate it on demand – is of cause something different. What do others think about this? Any “more advanced” configuration could also follow later on – I agree. My idea was just a more practical one. Depending on how Synapse is operated it might be the case that some of the endpoints are somehow “expected” to be suspended from time to time whereas others are expected to be 100% stable. Normally monitoring configuration is handled in one central place. The configuration knows about what events shall generate an alert and which ones have to be ignored to don’t flood the operational guys with “false positives”. This could be realized by proper filtering. On the other hand generating lots of events useless events will impose some overhead which might be avoidable, if events are already fired selectively. This of cause only makes sense if the configuration is managed centrally along with the monitoring configurations. If this is done manually, most users will probably prefer to filter on the client (monitoring) side. Just my personal 0.2 cents from both a users and a developer’s perspective. Regards, Eric ________________________________ From: Supun Kamburugamuva [mailto:supu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:08 PM To: dev@synapse.apache.org Subject: Re: JMX notifications for Endpoint state changes Hi Eric, Thanks for the suggestions. I like your second idea. In Endpoint case I think we can avoid using a User defined notification. We simply send a notification of type synapse.endpoint.state.change. We don't need to say what is the current state using a user defined notification. User can query the MBean and figure out what is the current state. My personal opinion about your first idea is we should consider it after the initial implementation depending on the user requirements. This gives us time to think about the correct way to have the configurations. Still I don't have a clear understanding about how to configure this. So my initial plan was to enable it for all the endpoints as in the normal JMX case. If we can come up with a correct sensible way to introduce this to the configuration, I'm +1 for implementing it. Thanks, Supun.. On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Hubert, Eric <eric.hub...@foxmobile.com<mailto:eric.hub...@foxmobile.com>> wrote: Hi Supun, I’m +1 on the idea in general. There are at least two things which come immediately into my mind we probably should consider when (before) implementing this feature: 1) Configuration concept for event creation 2) Notification Object Type to use 1) Here we should consider how configurable we want to keep the event creation. So I’m thinking on some decisions like this: - only turn on/off event creation per type (e.g. type endpoint marked as suspended) - or configurable per data object itself (e.g. on endpoint level) as part of the configuration language Here I also see a trade off. On the one hand the user will likely only be interested to keep his monitoring configuration in one central place. Definitely he may not be interested in all kind of events. Of course there is always the chance of using a NotificationFilter. 2) Depending on what information we want to distribute as part of an event object we should keep in mind that the client needs to have the Notification Object in his class path. So if using a non-standard object (e.g. a custom subclass of javax.management.Notification or non standard objects stored inside the notification or one of its standard subclasses) we should always keep this in mind and think about its implications and at least consider this in the artefact structure (created deployment units). Personally when working with JMX I always try to avoid non-standard objects and restrict myself to standard types if possible. Regards, Eric ________________________________ From: Supun Kamburugamuva [mailto:supu...@gm<mailto:supu...@gm>ail.com<http://ail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:47 PM To: dev@synapse.apache.org<mailto:dev@synapse.apache.org> Subject: JMX notifications for Endpoint state changes Hi, At the moment Synapse exposes endpoint statistics through JMX. In case of Endpoint state changes (i.e. marked as SUSPENDED) we can provide JMX notifications. This allows users to take actions promptly without waiting for pulling the endpoint status data. I would like to know the opinion of the community. The implementation is simple and if you agree on this I can provide a patch. Thanks, Supun.. -- Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc http://wso2.org supunk.blogspot.com<http://supunk.blogspot.com> -- Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc http://wso2.org supunk.blogspot.com<http://supunk.blogspot.com>
