Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
on 2003/2/2 2:42 AM, "Ilkka Priha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >-- cut --
Discussion is always fun, but to come to a common conclusion is usually hard :-) JMX as it is today is not perfect for Tammi, but there are a few good points for it.Also, the recent plans for Turbine's new service framework are somewhat overlapping with Tammi's JMX architecture. Our goal has been to keep the architecture as flat as possible by avoiding any hierarchical structures and I'd like to keep it that way.Yes, we will need to figure something out about that. I need to brush up on my JMX skills and review your code more so that I can make a clear argument for or against it. It seems that your use of JMX and Avalon kind of overlap. My general dislike for anything Sun produces seems like that might be a problem. I'm open for discussion on it if you are.
The pragmatic one is that even a poor standard is better than no standard at all.
The architectural one is the one I prefer most. As a generic object server, JMX enables architecture where the framework itself, i.e. the kind of meta-level of Tammi applications, doesn't define or require any specific roles for the application objects it serves, but they are all equal from the server's point of view. The objects themselves must agree upon their mutual relationships, which makes the framework extremely flexible for different purposes and future extensions (e.g. we have integrated it as an object management server for a legacy system of ship design where it provides db services, web services and a Swing based user interface).
From the developer's point of view, the run-time administration interface of JMX provides debugging support even for systems running in production, which significantly improves quality as those most-difficult-to-find production time bugs become visible.
And finally, even switching JMX to e.g. Phoenix in Tammi should not be an impossible task, the resulting system would be, once again, a totally new one and could be as well developed directly from the current Turbine sources (integrating Tammi as a whole to Avalon though some generic wrapper without generating depencies inside Tammi is of cource OK).
-- Ilkka
BTW there are already at least two open source implementations of JMX: MX4J (http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/) and JBoss-MX (http://www.jboss.org/developers/projects/jboss/jbossmx.jsp), and IBM's distributable version TMX4J (http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/aw.nsf/download/TMX4J). At least JBoss-MX is compatible with Tammi, so you don't have to stick to Sun's product ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
