Alex, I still think it's a good idea. Even if we don't call those objects MBeans and they have at least these two properties:
- The ability to set / get attributes - The ability to traverse hierarchical structures and pull out attributes Would it make more sense to you if we called them LightWeightAlexBeans? ;) -saad -----Original Message----- From: Alex Blewitt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [JNDI] [Config] Configuration: flat file or registry? No, because an MBean facade doesn't make sense. JMX is designed to support /management/ of beans, not to configure them (or indeed, much of the services in an app). At present, although the initial cut of the code is heavily MBean focussed, I (personally) hope that the JMX stuff will take second place to a more fine-tuned kernel that just exposes itself via MBean functionality. You raise a good point that an interpretor can read out the content of the JNDI file and present a file-based view; in fact, that's one of the possible work-arounds for a JNDI view and CVS as described on the page. Alex. On Monday, Aug 11, 2003, at 18:33 Europe/London, Saad Rehmani wrote: > Does it make sense to think of the configuration information as > residing > in a registry/tree which is facaded by mbeans? > > The text file could just have an interpretor that would eventually act > as yet another client for the mbeans and spit out an updated view of > the > config at the end. > > Any concurrency issues can be dealt with at the mbeans / jndi / > registry-implementation level as they'll have to face those anyways. > They'll have to deal with those anyways. > > -saad > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Hamblett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [JNDI] [Config] Configuration: flat file or registry? > > > Alex, > > I don't know if this will help, but I have been > working with iPlanet/Sun ONE, and if I remember correctly > (this comes from the marketing types) there is a > configuration feature that allows the configuration to be > in both places. The flat file is offered as a defelopment > solution, and allows configurations to be shared easily > between servers. I believe there is some continuity > between both, where the registry can be loaded via file, > and can be dumped to file. I don't know if this strategy > will help, or just create noise. Sorry if the latter. > > > Sean > > > Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I kicked off a thread suggesting configuration >> information may be stored in a registry-based system >> instead of a flat-file/xml-based format, which provoked >> some interesting comments and discussions. >> >> I've created a few pages to capture this in: >> >> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ConfigurationAsFlatFile >> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ConfigurationAsRegistry >> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ApacheJ2EE/Configuration >> >> and put comments that have been made by others in there. >> Ideally, I'd like people to review the first couple and >> add any other advantages/disadvantages/wishlist items >> inside there. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alex. >> >
