True, I did not remeber that. Any ways I think you get my point.
--jason
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Andreas Schaefer wrote:
> I personally think that the domain should be structured but for your
> example a colon (:) is not possible because it is reserved for the JMX
> Object Name.
>
> Andy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Dillon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Container.java
>
>
> > Can you provide an example for what this might look like? I am thinking
> > something url like, but I am not sure what the spec will allow for a
> domain
> > name. So the domain for the jms stuff might look like this:
> >
> > myhost.mydomain.com:/supercluster/jboss/jms
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
> > hostname cluster group
> >
> > Where cluster and group are rather arbitrary, but allow for a hierarchy of
> > stuff on each machine.
> >
> > Just a thought.
> >
> > --jason
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Andreas Schaefer wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jasson
> > >
> > > Yes, I plan to reorganize the MBean Object Names for the implementation
> > > of the server-side JBossMGT.
> > > According to their spec it would be maybe good to have something like
> this:
> > > - domain: is the JBoss server instance which can be default be the host
> > > computer
> > > name but should be able to renamed
> > > - properties:
> > > - group: where this component belongs to
> > > - type: type of component
> > > - name: name of the component
> > >
> > > The domain should keep an unique name on the network / management domain
> > > because we maybe use a federation to access MBeans and then it is
> important
> > > to have this.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jason Dillon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 9:42 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Container.java
> > >
> > >
> > > > Is there a general guide line for domain usage under jmx? Are there
> any
> > > > plans to exploit this in a more organized manner? Should domain refer
> to
> > > > components on a single agent, or cross multiple agents? For example
> in a
> > > > clustered environment, domain could refer to a particular node group,
> or
> > > > could simply refer to a group of components on a single node.
> > > >
> > > > I am thinking that the jmx domain fluff might bet best left as a node
> > > > component grouping tools, and leave node grouping up to higher level
> > > > organizations (like jini and such).
> > > >
> > > > Any ways, this is going to be important for the upcoming RH stuff to
> > > provide
> > > > a consistent and rich configuration of JBoss nodes in a farm or
> clustered
> > > > environment.
> > > >
> > > > --jason
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
