If we ever had a single reusable annotations library (for things like
@Mandatory, @OneWay etc) we could have an annotation @Description to
be used to annotate a property used for descriptive purposes in
logs/consoles/UIs
On 7/18/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The problem is that if you forget that, or use one bit of code outside
> > our control (e.g. Tomcat, Jetty, etc.) you instantly get really nasty
> > entries on the screen that shows the statistics. At least now we can
> > tell which ones aren't implemented and just bundle those into an
> > "unknown" category. I'm open to alternatives, but I don't like the
> > toString one so much.
>
> How about having some optional interface such as Nameable...
This would be possible (though I don't care about an ObjectName, just
a human-readable name). But it still requires code changes which will
be hard to enforce on third-party components. It might be ideal to
have some sort of registry where you can say "Runnables of type
org.mortbay.jetty.http.** should be identified as 'Jetty Execute
Thread'". I haven't thought up a way to make that convenient either,
though -- it has to be open to additions at runtime as new plugins are
registered, etc.
Thanks,
Aaron
> public interface Nameable {
> /**
> * Gets a human-readable name identifying this object.
> */
> String getName();
>
> /**
> * Gets the unique name of this object. The object name must
> comply with
> * the ObjectName specification in the JMX specification.
> *
> * @return the unique name of this object within the server
> */
> String getObjectName();}
> }
>
> Then any console related code could do an instanceof to see if the
> implementation has carefully created a nice visual representation.
> (Folks could use AOP to inject implementations too). This interface
> can then be used across many different kinds of objects for consoles.
>
> Then code like the work manager can stick to regular interfaces like
> Executor, Runnable etc? No biggie, just a thought.
>
>
> > In any case, you can definitely remove GeronimoExecutor.
>
> +1
> --
>
> James
> ---
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
--
James
---
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
