Rickard �berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Justin Forder wrote:
>> Are there any documentation conventions for MLETs?
>>
>> A good UNIX configuration file would be largely composed of explanatory
>> text and commented-out examples.
>
>IMHO the current MLet conf style is seriously flawed. Not only is it a
>bad thing to have anonymous <ARG TYPE=.. VALUE=..> tags (which is
>which!?) but the JMX RI also does not support comments(!) in the file.
An XML file that doesn't support XML comments? +1 on the (!).
I was surprised not to see names on the arguments.
>Because of this I would generally recommend that MLets do not take any
>arguments, but instead are configure through get/set methods, whose
>values are set through the .jcml file (which do not have the above
>problems!).
Right. Just took a look at jboss.jcml, and it looks much more sanitary.
I'll have to read the JMX spec - at first sight (including looking at
the ConsoleLogging and ConsoleLoggingMBean source) I can't see how the
pieces are all correlated... oh, right, the MLET arguments go to a
compatible constructor, and the name used in the .jcml is the name that
the ConsoleLogging instance returns from preRegister.
>When I get the time I will convert as many MBeans as possible to support
>this style of configuration.
That sounds like a mechanical task; your time is too valuable for that.
Can't Marc find someone (else) at Telkel to do it?
>
>regards,
> Rickard
>
--
Justin Forder
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
