The one aspect of the current mbean names I'm not happy with though is that it is equivalent to the EJB JNDI name rather than a symbolic reference. We have already suffered from a single name change breaking dependencies based on the mbean JMX ObjectName. It would be nice to use symbolic names like SecurityManagerService and have a global config file that mapped from the symbolic name to the actual JMX ObjectName to avoid having to known the full ObjectName. It would also allow for quick changes in global naming policies that would be a bitch to do now.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Scott Stark Chief Technology Officer JBoss Group, LLC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott M Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] MBean interfaces to EJBs > I don't think the issue was avoiding the generation of the service > description, > rather it was delaying the choice of the name which really is a rather > arbitrary setting aside from its use in dependencies. The service descriptor > can be generated dynamically as is done by the XSL based deployer you > wrote so end of story. An mbean has to have a name. > ------------------------------------------------------- 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-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
