--- Andreas Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: Hi Geeks
If this was already discussed then I feel sorry to
bother you
with this again.
Based on the last response of Julian on my Call for
Help
he said that the Jetty implementation exposes the
Servets
as MBeans at the MBeanServer like we do with the
JBoss
components. Because I started to create a
environment to
manage JBoss from an administrator (not just JBoss
installer)
Servlets/WebApps are wrapped in a container object
that represesnts a JSDK Context, which services and
manages them. Each of these container objects, when a
JMX interface is needed, is represented by a
DynamicMBean which is generated when necessary,
duplicates and publishes the container object's
interface to JMX, and delegates all calls on this
interface to the container.
This implementation allows us the abstraction that we
are talking to the JSDK Context (e.g. /myservlet/*)
via JMX.
This is slighly different from talking to the Servlet
itself.
What we see is an interface designed to manage 1-N
servlets which are registered with the same context.
Not the complete public API of each individual
Servlet.
When Greg (Jetty maintainer) gets back from holiday I
shall ask him whether he has any plans to further
reduce the granularity of his JMX interface so that
each JSDK Context can publish MBean facades for all
the Servlets registered with it. This would lead to
quite a proliferation of MBeans!
In conclusion:
On the downside, this mechanism put's the onus on the
JBoss Service to choose exactly what it wishes to
pulish of it's internals and implement it. On the
upside, the Service may expose more of it's internals
than are immediately relevant to JBoss, giving the
appearance of 'a society of services' rather than one
single API.
Hope that doesn't complicate matters too much !
Jules
I have these two choices:
1) exposing the information by a management
component
(as I already started) and the components
reports the
deployment etc.
2) exposing the deployed components as MBeans
themselves
as Jetty is doing so.
The fist solution would need some changes to the
deployers and
other classes to report the changes and could only
be used to
retrieve informations.
The second solution would increase the numbers of
MBeans
dramatically but would allow any JMX management tool
to
manage JBoss (the server as well as the served
components).
I think the second solution would be the better one
but it would
need some major changes to the deployers to support
the
creation and registration of the MBeans. BUT it
would need
some improvements in the JMX Connector to support
security
otherwise we expose the whole application. The same
is through
for the JMX HTML-Adaptor but this can be secured by
securing
the 8082 port through a firewall.
What do you think ? Speak up !
Andy
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
