> > >But once there is a common abstract to sub-class or a concreate wrapper
> > >(that would proxy to an object), that seems like it would be easier
>than
> > >the
> > >interface as well as provide more functionality.
> >
> > No, I think that the easiest way to expose attributes and functions is
>to
> > list them in a interface file. The interface file has the minimum info
>for
> > the Wrapper DynamicMBean to function. It's just that if that wrapper
>MBean
> > finds an associated property file to use to add to interface it would be
> > nice too.
>
>I still think that it would be easier to
>
><snip>
>public class MyClass extends AbstractDynamicMBean
>{
> public MyClass() {
> ...
> }
>
> protected String[] getAttributeNames() {
> return new String[] { "name" };
> }
>
> public String getName() {
> ...
> }
>
> public void setName(String name) {
> ...
> }
>}
></snip>
>
>By doing this we could create a subclass which would use introspection to
>list all attributes and operations, for objects that want to be beans and
>just what to expose all publics.
>
I see how this could be simpler in some cases... But in cases where you are
using interface Inheritance, MBean interface files really shine. By
extending another interface you are exposing those managment methods too.
Plus it seems like you better compile time checking since the compiler will
let you know if you miss typed something in the MBean interface file. Whith
your approach above, you would not know if you missed typed anything until
runtime.
>
>Dealing with the interface reminds me of c header files. In most cases the
>MBean that I write want to expose all public methods, so when I add a new
>one, update the sig or whatever, I have to keep the *MBean iterface upto
>date. Note a big deal, but kinda tedious. If we are going to move to
>dynamic mbeans to make better use of jmx (which I think is a great idea)
>then why not expliot it to the fullest and make JBoss more maintainable and
>easier to extend...
>
I don't think that going one way or another will make a real impact on the
maintanance or extensability of JBoss... If anything doing it either way
will make it less understandable since we will be diverging from standard
MBean type code in DynamicMBean code.
>
> > So what do you think... Should I commit the code and see if anybody
>uses
> > it??
>
>Sure, commit it.
>
ok.. will do in a few days...
Regards,
Hiram
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
