|I still don't see anything wrong with type check for
|org.jboss.util.Service.
It is the simplest (and your first call) good for you kid!
marc
|
|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
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
