proxy.
cheers,
SAcha
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]De la part de
> David Jencks
> Envoyé : mercredi, 26 juin 2002 13:42
> À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Objet : Re: [JBoss-dev] JMX: Adding Model MBean database persistence
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, David Jencks wrote:
> This may work fine for packages deployed by a deploymentScanner, but will
> work less well for packages deployed by directly calling
> MainDeployer.deploy. Scanning for packages may not be the most useful
> deployment method... even though right now it
Your ideas both seem promising. I'm still not sure about what we want as
the primary determinant of which mbeans are present in a restarted server.
My impression of your proposals is that they result in the set of mbeans
being determined by the deployed *-service.xml files available at restart,
First of all, I'm really delighted you are working on this.
You are going to have conflicts with our current usage of **-service.xml
files, since we are abusing them to serve for both telling the server what
mbeans we want and what their initial configuration is, and as our only
form of persisten
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Paul Ward wrote:
> Why I had to create an XMBean descendant:
>
> First, XMBean's link to the PM interface is through the instance created in the
>static
> initializer for the ModelMBeanInvoker class. This class is hard coded to use the
>NullPersistence
> class as it's PM.
Why I had to create an XMBean descendant:
First, XMBean's link to the PM interface is through the instance created in the static
initializer for the ModelMBeanInvoker class. This class is hard coded to use the
NullPersistence class as it's PM. The only flexibility to change this that I've fou
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Paul Ward wrote:
> I am currently in the process of creating an XMBean descendant and
>PersistenceManager implementation
We don't need an XMBean descendant, just the PM implementation.
> Is there any interest in having this added to the JBoss head?
Yes.
> If so, does an
