> Object[] invokeXML( Document );
I am not sure that an array of objects in this case would be very useful,
and would lead to a possible memory issue for large invokations in this
manner... in extereme cases that is.
Why clutter up the method name with an XML suffix when you are passing in
XML specific objects?
> Object invokeXML( Element );
>
> Note that MBeanServer's invoke() is not the same.
I am not sure what you mean by this.
I am not sure that a create-mbean method was requested. It might be nice,
but I would clearify with Marc, as to what he is expecting.
If you do add creation, you might want to drop the -mean suffix, since
everything in this context is mbean specific.
> BTW is it necessary to return the return values in an XML form ?
I would assume no, though it might be nice to export a method to convert a
return value into xml. I think that this might be used initialy in
configuration files and controlled by java, thus returning in xml would
cause the application to be forced to parse the result, which might not be
desired.
--jason
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
