As I understand the proposal at the moment, it is to allow mbeans to declare multiple object names that they can be looked up under (at least in the dependency management part of ServiceController), some of them of the form
alias:symbolic-name=SomethingYouMightRememberButThenAgainYouMightNotService and to include these in the *-service.xml in the mbean config, along with the "real" object name. Sorry, but I don't see the point over naming the mbean well in the first place. How often are we going to want to change the SomethingYouMightRememberButThenAgainYouMightNotService part compared to the "real" object name? What is the use case for changing the domain part of a bunch of object names? david jencks On 2002.07.31 10:24:11 -0400 Scott M Stark wrote: > Don't allow that. Names have would have to be indicated as aliases > using an object name form "alias:symbolic-name". You can detect > duplicate aliases just as you can detect an attempt to reuse object > names. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Scott Stark > Chief Technology Officer > JBoss Group, LLC > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 6:13 AM > Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] MBean interfaces to EJBs > > > > It would make the ServiceConfigurator much more complicated, since it > would > > have to store non-object-names in the dependency list. It also allows > > conflicts: what if 2 or more mbeans define the same alias? > > > > I'm still a bit doubtful about the real utility of this service, but if > we > > do it lets use a single immutable global file that has to be available > to > > ServiceController/Configurator when jboss is started. This is an easy > > implementation, we can see if we like it, if we need more we can add > them > > later. > > > > david jencks > > > > On 2002.07.31 08:43:01 -0400 Sacha Labourey wrote: > > > Instead of having a alias to mbean name in another file, why not > simply > > > have > > > a <alias> tag available for mbeans i.e. > > > > > > <mbean bla> > > > <depends [optional-attribute-name="blah"]>QueueManager</depends> > > > </mbean> > > > > > > <mbean bli name="jboss:name=QueueManagerImpl,type=invm"> > > > <!--mbean has a complex objectname--> > > > <alias names="QueueManager,QueueSecurityManager"/> > > > <!--... but defines aliases with well known generic names (possibly > more > > > than one)--> > > > </mbean> > > > > > > => you define the alias in the mbean itself as a set of "well known > > > generic > > > object names" > > > > > > Maybe that's too complicated and the intermediary file is more easy > to > > > use. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > SAcha > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]De la part de > Michael > > > > Stanley > > > > Envoye : mercredi, 31 juillet 2002 14:28 > > > > A : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Objet : Re: [JBoss-user] MBean interfaces to EJBs > > > > > > > > > > > > I Agree 100% > > > > > > > > Symbolic names are definitely a good idea. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > Scott M Stark wrote: > > > > > Yes that is correct. Changing one name in a well known file > > > > > vs changing 20 names, several of which where in archives > > > > > is a lot easier. Come on, the time you spent fixing the testcases > > > > > would have been at least an order of magnitude less. It actually > > > > > would have been zero because I would have just changed the > > > > > mapping and not cared who was referencing the security manager. > > > > > > > > > > Independent of the ease of change, the point here is why even > > > > > impose an object naming convention that we don't really care > > > > > about on the end user. > > > > > > > > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > Scott Stark > > > > > Chief Technology Officer > > > > > JBoss Group, LLC > > > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 7:56 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] MBean interfaces to EJBs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>To make sure I understand what you are proposing... > > > > >> > > > > >>a global set of > > > > >> > > > > >><symbolic-name> == <ObjectName> > > > > >> > > > > >>and with > > > > >><depends [optional-attribute-name="blah"]>some-string</depends> > > > > >> > > > > >>some-string is first looked up in the table as a symbolic name, > and > > > only > > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > >>not found we try to use it as an object name. > > > > >> > > > > >>This would certainly make changing the <ObjectName> half easier, > but > > > > >>changing the symbolic-name would be just as hard. > > > > >> > > > > >>This certainly wouldn't be hard to do, I'm still thinking about > > > > my opinion > > > > >>on whether it would overall reduce complexity and maintenance. I > > > didn't > > > > >>find changing the object name for the DefaultDS all that hard. > > > > >> > > > > >>thanks > > > > >>david jencks > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board > for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! > http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31 > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31 _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
