Alex Blewitt wrote:
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.
Hmm. Ever seen the Avalon Configuration API? It's pretty easy to use.
It also is easily bound to XML and LDAP. One class takes care of a
number of possibilities.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
