> This would have the additional advantage of allowing a
> Service that does inherit from Service to opt out of
> the JBoss lifecycle by returning 'false'. Furthermore
> it would allow dynamic MBeans to make the decision
> dynamically, instead of statically, which on further
> consideration I think is probably the best argument
> for the method. DynamicMBeans are allowed to vary
> their interfaces during their lifetime. This may well
> impact on the availability of their JBoss Service
> interface, so they need to be able to indicate this to
> JBoss.
>
> I don't think you can achieve this same dynamicity and
> simplicity by checking inheritance or naming schemes.
>
> Anyone ?
>
Aha nice, very nice. This solution is much more flexible and better. I see
your point clearly.
Vladimir
>
> Jules
>
> --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hey ppl,
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Julian Gosnell wrote:
> >
> > > I think that Services should publish 'boolean
> > > isAJBossService() {return true;}' method.
> > >
> > > This could be implemented in MBeanServiceSupport
> > for
> > > standard Service MBeans. Dynamic Service MBeans
> > would
> > > have to do it themselves.
> > >
> >
> > Yes sure, but what if DynamicMBean doesn't fullfill
> > this contract or
> > implements it poorly? DMBean will probably log
> > NoSuchMethodException or
> > even something worse and we will have bunch of
> > "cosmetic" (thanks
> > Scott) stacktraces/exceptions.
> >
> > I still don't see anything wrong with type check for
> > org.jboss.util.Service.
> >
> > Vladimir
> >
> >
> > > You could use naming, but then you constrain
> > naming
> > > conventions, which may upset someone else.
> > >
> > > Just my 1p's-worth,
> > >
> > > Jules
> > >
> > > --- Scott M Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > The Jetty mbean is logging the exception itself
> > as a
> > > > warning and then it
> > > > is throwing the proper ReflectionException. The
> > > > issue is that ServiceControl
> > > > is invoking JBoss Service methods on any mbean
> > that
> > > > registers with the
> > > > MBeanServer. There needs to be a way to tell
> > > > ServiceControl that categories
> > > > of mbean should not be treated as candidate
> > JBoss
> > > > services. I'm saying this
> > > > is trivial to do using a domain naming
> > convention
> > > > and a configurable NotificationFilter
> > > > based on mbean domain names.
> > > >
> > > > If anyone has a better way achieving this speak
> > up.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 10:30 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Nested JMX Service
> > > > Groups...??!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, it looks to me like he has thrown the
> > > > NoSuchMethodException himself
> > > > > in his ModelMBeanImpl. This exception
> > dexcends
> > > > from Exception, thus is not
> > > > > a reflection exception, and isn't caught by
> > any of
> > > > the exception
> > > > > handlers/ignorers.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't yet understand what ModelMBeans are
> > for...
> > > > but if he changed the
> > > > > missing method handling to match that of line
> > 1620
> > > > of the MBeanServerImpl,
> > > > > the problems might go away.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Further posts from Scott Stark and Marc Fleury
> > > > make me think this may be
> > > > > difficult to impossible. If so, we could
> > instead
> > > > change ServiceControl to
> > > > > ignore MethodNotFoundExceptions as well as
> > > > ReflectionExceptions. e.g.
> > > > > around line 67
> > > > >
> > > > > } catch (ReflectionException e)
> > > > > {
> > > > > // Not a service - ok
> > > > > }
> > > > > catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
> > > > > //Not a service - also ok
> > > > > } catch (RuntimeMBeanException e)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally I am inclined to suggest putting
> > empty
> > > > methods for the
> > > > > nonexistent operations in every mbean. I
> > don't
> > > > entirely understand why
> > > > > this isn't in the mbean spec.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Jencks
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Jboss-development mailing list
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> > > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Jboss-development mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Jboss-development mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
>
>
> =====
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
