FYI, I've created a forum on the topic. http://www.jboss.org/forums/forum.jsp?forum=160
Scott McLaughlin, do you want to drive any of this? Seems you've had some energy around this. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Bill Burke Chief Architect JBoss Group, LLC XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott > M Stark > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 2:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [JBoss-dev] Fixing the management info layer > > > We need better management information. A lot of the JSR-77 stuff is useful > information, the only problem was with how it was integrated, not really > tested, and not understood by the people working on the core stuff into > which this foreign code was interjected. > > > Where applicable this should be integrated via interceptors > and/or aspects that > emit JMX notifications on which JSR-77 bean may be created. So the first > step is to replace the existing JSR-77 stuff with what we > actually need to do > management and support of JBoss. For caches, pools, invocations, > etc. there > needs to be low impact asynchronous events that allow for > collection of this > information and rehashing statistically and historically. > > I want this working in 3.2 as well so where the aspect stuff > cannot be used > alternative approaches are needed. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Scott Stark > Chief Technology Officer > JBoss Group, LLC > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 11:22 AM > Subject: Management layer > > > > Before you do anything to the jsr-77 stuff, I'd like to know if > we plan to > > continue to implement it. Although I personally never got why > it is useful > > under any circumstances, I'm willing to believe e.g. marc if he says we > > should keep it. anyway, > > > > -- if we plan to implement it, I suggest moving directly to an mbean > > interceptor/aspect based implementation where we keep the "management" > > module more or less the same but replace the stuff spread all > over the rest > > of the code with interceptors. > > > > -- if we plan to not implement it, ... remove it all. > > > > I think even a somewhat lame implementation will provide an > easier base for > > improvement than starting over from scratch. Do we have anyone > interested > > in working on it? There was a guy helping andy for a while. > > > > > > thanks > > david > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
