On Monday, Aug 11, 2003, at 21:19 Europe/London, Saad Rehmani wrote:
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? ;)
At the risk of being ego centric, yes :-)
Seriously, though -- that's all a configuration interface needs to be. Kind of a merge between a TreeModel and a JavaBean.
The biggie is that JMX is /way/ more than that, with the result that a lot of the other JMX features get exposed/used/abused in the implementation to the extent that you don't know what's there and what's not. The current code shot depends heavily on JMX, for example with calling components JMX names and using a MBeanServer as an argument to register with. Decoupling code is easy; decoupling concepts is much more difficult.
Alex.
