On Dec 29, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Hawkins, Joel wrote:
Hi Meeraj,
Nice summation - thanks!
There are two aspects we are discussing here,
1. How the management mechanism is implemented
2. How the management interface is extracted from managed components
On the first aspect this is how I see i
Hi Meeraj,
Nice summation - thanks!
>There are two aspects we are discussing here,
>1. How the management mechanism is implemented
>2. How the management interface is extracted from managed components
>On the first aspect this is how I see it,
> ...
>5. TuscanyServer will use JMX for management
er.
Ta
Meeraj
From: Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Standalone server
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:10:56 -0800
Hang on guys, there's a difference between the "Server" part that clients
talk to an
stem
service.
Ta
Meeraj
From: "Hawkins, Joel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
To:
Subject: RE: Standalone server
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:27:00 -0500
Meeraj,
>I think it would be fairly straightforward to write a generic JMX
dynamic
>MBean based on
system service.
Ta
Meeraj
From: "Hawkins, Joel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
To:
Subject: RE: Standalone server
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:27:00 -0500
Meeraj,
>I think it would be fairly straightforward to write a generic JMX
dynamic
>MBean base
Meeraj,
>I think it would be fairly straightforward to write a generic JMX
dynamic
>MBean based on introspecting the annotated members (ops, properties
etc),
>quite similar to the reflection one already in the source tree. I think
one
>key question is would these annotations be specific to tusc
pache.org
To:
Subject: RE: Standalone server
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:15:00 -0500
>>How that description is done is really part of the component
>>programming
>>model so I would suggest moving that to the appropriate container
>>extensions (primarily the java and system co
>>How that description is done is really part of the component
>>programming
>>model so I would suggest moving that to the appropriate container
>>extensions (primarily the java and system containers for now - it's
>>probably common to both).
>Would the components annotate the ops and propert
From: Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Standalone server
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:43:12 -0800
On Dec 28, 2006, at 8:20 AM, Meeraj Kunnumpurath wrote:
Hi,
What I have done for the time being, is
On Dec 28, 2006, at 8:20 AM, Meeraj Kunnumpurath wrote:
Hi,
What I have done for the time being, is to use DynamicMBean and
reflection to expose any POJO as a managed bean. It is in
org.apache.tuscany.standalone.server.management.jmx.instrument.reflect
.ReflectedDynamicMBean. By default it
want to
register all the components in the system tree as well?
Ta
Meeraj
From: "Hawkins, Joel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
To:
Subject: RE: Standalone server
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:25:52 -0500
Hi Jeremy,
This is interesting stuff...
>The othe
Hi Jeremy,
This is interesting stuff...
>The other thought was about how a component could expose a management
>interface. One option would be to support for
>attachment to a service; however, this would require a componentType
>sidefile. Another would be to support an @Management annotati
On Dec 27, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Meeraj Kunnumpurath wrote:
Hi,
I have updated standalone server to support multiple runtimes. Now,
when the server is started, it doesn't start any runtime. However,
the server has a management op called startRuntime(String bootPath)
to start a runtime. Boot p
Hi,
I have updated standalone server to support multiple runtimes. Now, when the
server is started, it doesn't start any runtime. However, the server has a
management op called startRuntime(String bootPath) to start a runtime. Boot
path for the runtime is resolved relative to the installation
14 matches
Mail list logo
