Hi!
marc fleury wrote:
> I do still believe that JMX will take care of the calls. Never do I say
> that our core services shouldn't be MBeans. They MUST be MBeans if anything
> because the MLet mechanisms is really what is cool.
Or at least the MLet-ish mechanism, now that we primarily use the
Configuration MBean to instantiate MBeans.
> |to provide a good administration environment as long as the admin.
> |tool is written in Java. And the bigger App. servers like WebSphere
> |or Weblogic comes with a Java admin. tool.
>
> Yes that is the point, we want a java API for admin not the bare JMX face.
>
> so it is a layer on *top* of JMX not a replacement for it.
So, create an interface/MBean and use the MBeanProxy to create a Java
object to use.
> |Goals:
> |- has to work not only for JBoss
> |- is transport protocol independent (WebSphere uses their OSE
> | and Weblogic their T3)
>
> that is going to be difficult. You will be only at the model layer and you
> will need to add say an SNMP impl to make it work. What I really want to do
> is instrument MBeans.
That's going to be very difficult... good luck though!
> |I would suggest the following concept:
> |- the client has to be written in Java
>
> The client API has to be in java, not the client itself if you ask me ( I am
> very happy with JSP generated admin, in fact one of the first things I would
> like to do is a taglib for admin :))))
Not a taglib (Marc, taglibs should *not* be functionally oriented!), but
a taglib generated interface is cool.
> |- navigation through the server service trees (WAS and WL display
> | its services as a tree)
>
> Yes yes yes,
Although, how do we get this tree? The MBeans are a set, not a tree.
It's not JNDI we are talking about here.
> |- support for monitoring which should be separat from administration
>
> OK, this is the real point in my mind. The statistics and metrics is what
> is going to set us apart and give us a leg up on EVERYONE. I was looking at
> badJuju stuff and I believe it is a step in the right direction, it needs to
> be an MBean and I can take it from there. (exporting registering etc etc)
Yup.
> |The server implementation of JBoss could look like:
> |- either JMX MBeans or EJBs implements the server-side administration
>
> Don't confuse the 2, JMX MBeans are always the base. I am talking about a
> EJB face to them.
Not sure I see the value of an EJB face to the MBeans. Can you explain?
> |- I would suggest RMI as a transport protocol
>
> yes as a first cut but we are aware of its limitations.
For admin it is perfectly ok. Are there any limitations of RMI/JRMP
(note: RMI is *NOT* a transport protocol) that are relevant re: admin?
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
