<Andrzej>
>Many controllers won't have any display capability. I see JMX
instrumentation
>as the best way to handle this situation for the more capable controllers,
and a
>custom solution (lightweight HTTP/HTML server on the controller?) for the
>smaller devices.
I am assuming that they have none. The devices that provide the UI need to
be able to communicate directly and simply with the Embedlets. Envision a
plant operator walking up to a device with his wireless or wired hand-held
to make adjustments to the system. Requiring JMX as the sole management
interface would, I think, put a very large infrastructure demand on that
simple interaction. It would also lock out other socket/XML capable
interfaces such as ActiveX (yes it still lives), .NET, Perl etc. I agree
that a JMX/Embedlet Adapter would defintely be a huge boost to the
acceptablility at the Enterprise management level.
It is my assertion, however that we need and can have a simple dynamic
configuration, persistence and management interface without significant
footprint bloat, possibly relieving the requirement for a tool-heavy static
build process.
A bold statement I know, but I am prepared to back it up with some coded
examples.
Chris
|
