On 2002.02.26 00:29:03 -0500 Jason Dillon wrote: > > > > > >Well, my idea was that since Containers are mbeans already, why not > >transform the dd's to mbean config. I'm still thinking about how to > best > >deal with subsidiary objects. I'm thinking if all the subsidiary > objects > >are javabeans they can be constructed easily from xml, through jaxb or > >other ways. > > > I am still not sure this is a good idea. Doing this will force MBeans > to expose setters for all config, which may not be the proper admin > interface for the bean.
Well, getRemote and invokeHome aren't exactly admin interfaces on a container, but they are there today. I think using the xmbean/modelmbean facilities to either supply 2 interfaces to one object or indicate which things are "human administratable" and which are internal will be useful. > > Why not a pass the MBean an object that represtents its config? Then it > could choose what to expose. Or how about a mix between the two... how > I don't know. This would allow config for black-box components and > provide a rich interface for integrated components. > > For example, could generate an object from xml (or handroll) then if the > bean has a method to invoke and take the config object call it and your > done, else do attrib set on each element. This will only work with a > flat config namespace though. > > Or for the most adaptability, provide a mechanism to map config to mbean > attributes/operations. Right now I'd like to go for something at least as simple as I can think of, with only absolutely necessary configurability. Anyway, this is all in my head so far, I will keep you posted on my progress. david jencks > > --jason > > > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
