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-user mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
>
>
> --
> <Mike/>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
-------------------------------------------------------
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
