On Monday, Aug 11, 2003, at 16:55 Europe/London, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I'd like to find out more about what you've done, if we can take this discussion out of the group, and then perhaps present a way of how we might use these kind of ideas to provide a micro-kernel architecture for the system.
Please don't take it out of this forum - this is a useful discussion for
everyone.
We are currently using a JMX kernel for historical reasons, and because it
lets us get something running really quickly. At this time I think getting
something running is a better plan than getting the best thing designed as
it lets other subprojects (like the verifier) get going. This is a project
management thing, not a technical one.
I agree that getting a working anything is a good starting point. However, there do seem to be two modes of thought; JMX and not JMX (various threads, Config/JNDI/One True Way) have already discussed the benefits of either approach.
Provided that the current implementation is not heavily dependent on JMX (i.e. the classes don't unnecessarily pretend to be MBeans) then we should be able to migrate anything that evolves. However, in order for such changes to occur then it will be necessary for the configuration file not to be too dependent on JMX, or at least make it easy to refactor later.
Alex.
