On 13/12/2010 16:37, msacks wrote: > Hi All, > I recently presented on kitty at the Los Angeles Java User Group, and > I received some useful feedback from the group there that I wanted to > share for discussion here. Kitty has a roadmap item for performing > Tomcat-specific tasks such as working with objects in the Catalina > MBeanServer. We want to make Kitty specific to managing Tomcat servers > for the purposes of making it more production-ready, but the following > viewpoint was expressed from LAJUG: > > 1) That it is extremely useful to have a command-line JMX Client > 2) That the Tomcat-specific bits should be designed as a plugin, so > that if they would like to use Kitty for administering something else, > they aren't limited to Tomcat only > > I wanted to present this to the group, because it is essentially a > change of focus for Kitty if we were to take such an approach. Kitty > currently has a roadmap item to become more Tomcat-specific, although > it is a completely generic JMX client at this point and will work with > any JMX implementation. Then we would be making the Tomcat-specific > administration bits a pluggable module rather than built into the > utility, such that if someone wanted to adopt Kitty for managing > Cassandra, Geronimo, or any other JMX-aware application they would > have the freedom to write a module and do so. > > I personally think this should be fine, although I would still prefer > to focus on writing Tomcat-specific plugins first, and anyone else can > write other plugins for other apps if they so choose. I wanted to get > the feedback for level of effort on making the Tomcat methods > pluggable. It also raises questions on how do you load specific > plugins, do we change the focus of the project, etc.
+1 Modularity and abstraction is fine by me. We'll need to do this anyway to cope with differences between Tomcat 6.0 & 7.0 p > > Thanks, > Matthew Sacks
0x62590808.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
