On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 12:45 AM, David Jencks wrote:
My point is there is nothing to fix. In the end all the implementation does not have the code to handle a block of setters. I suppose you could call adding a state change (life cycle interceptor) a fix, but I wouldn't. It is simply additional frame work to deal with a deficiency in the implementation. You're not fixing the problem but coding around it.On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 12:47 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 09:36 PM, David Jencks wrote:Ya sure, but the implementation just calls some setters. There implementation doesn't understand that this is a group of changes. If the setAttributes was implemented by hand it could understand that host, port and back log were all changed and only create the new listener socket once.On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 07:39 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:Wow, I had no idea it was this complicated. Anyway the real problem is a Dynamic MBean has a setAttributes method to group together an entire set of attribute changes in one operator, but when we go to standard mbeans we lose that concept because we only have a bunch of setters. That sucks.??? You still have the setAttributes method on the mbean server, which is the only way you can get at the stuff.
So we need to fix the jmx implementation.
Anyway I say potato and you say potatoe :)
-dain
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
