Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

ahh shit... I didn't do a clean build, although I didn't change any classes, only templates, so it shouldn't be an issue.  If you
still have a copy of a working jar, then just find the openjmx-descriptor.j template (named something like that) and replace it with
the one in XDoclet cvs.

I really do need to put that doco in dont I.  let me know if the following doesn't seem logical:

@jmx:mbean defines things that are related to the spec.  Its presence indicates that a MyServiceMBean interface will be created for
the MyService class.  the extends parameter specifies an interface for the MyServiceMBean interface to extend.

@openjmx:description defines things that are related to the openjmx description adaptor class.  The absense of it means that all
defaults will be followed for the openjmx description class.  Its extends parameter allows the description class to extend a
specific class - this class should itself extend the openjmx abstract description class.  If it is not there, and the MyService
class extends FooService, then the MyServiceMBeanDescription class will extend FooServiceMBeanDescription (are they the right class
names?).  If there is no @openjmx:descriptione extends="" _and_ MyService doesn't extend anything, then MyServiceMBeanDescription
will simply extend the OpenJMX abstract description class (sorry - cant remember the name).

I'll do this in doco format, and it should seem clearer - any input is welcome (o:

cheers
dim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Quiroz" <car...@we...>
To: <ope...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]

On Monday 04 February 2002 23:07, Dmitri Colebatch wrote:
> Ok - have a look in XDoclet CVS.
>
> example usage:
>
> /**
>  * Sample MBean implementation.
>  * @jmx:mbean name=":service=MyService" description="My wonderful service."
>  * @openjmx:description extends="AbstractMBeanDescription"
>  */
>
> Over next weekend, I'll get the XDoclet side of the docs done so that this
> is all a little bit more "proper" (o:
Thanks a lot Dimitri...

What is the name in jmx:mbean doing? Do you still have the jmx:mbean extends?

I can't build it from CVS because of some serialveruid classes which don't
compile, any idea?

Regards

>
> cheers
> dim
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jérôme BERNARD" <jer...@xt...>
> To: <ope...@li...>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
>
>
> Sounds good for me too.
>
> Jerome.
>
> Carlos Quiroz wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Dmitri Colebatch [mailto:di...@bi...]
> >>Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
> >>To: Jérôme BERNARD; ope...@li...
> >>Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
> >>
> >>Given that the description class is specific to OpenJMX and the
> >
> >interface
> >
> >>is
> >>a spec thing, I would suggest keeping the current tag for the usual
> >>scenario
> >>(as you described), but allowing an optional @openjmx:description
> >>extends=""
> >>for overriding this default behaviour.
> >>
> >>if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
> >>straight
> >>away.
> >
> >I think this would be pretty OK
> >
> >>cheesr
> >>dim
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Jérôme BERNARD" <jer...@xt...>
> >>To: <ope...@li...>
> >>Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
> >>
> >>Carlos Quiroz wrote:
> >>>On Sunday 03 February 2002 20:43, Jérôme BERNARD wrote:
> >>>>What bug do you have?
> >>>>
> >>>>I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add an
> >>
> >>example
> >>
> >>>>and that's it.
> >>>>So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I will fix it
> >
> >ASAP.
> >
> >>>Again with the extend="XXX" which is expanded on the MBeanDescription
> >>
> >>class
> >>
> >>>to extends XXXMBeanDescription
> >>>
> >>>Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
> >>
> >>assumes
> >>
> >>>that your extended interface also has a Description class
> >>
> >>Yes. This is a design reason. I supposed that the class which would be
> >>extended would be a MBeanDescription class too. This is also because I
> >>found it easier to have only one extends attribute on the jmx:mbean
> >
> >tag
> >
> >>rather than having two (one for the interface and one for the
> >>description) because I think that most of the cases will have a
> >>description extending another one.
> >>
> >>What would you prefer/propose to do?
> >>
> >>Jerome.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Openjmx-devel mailing list
> >>Ope...@li...
> >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Openjmx-devel mailing list
> >>Ope...@li...
> >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Openjmx-devel mailing list
> >Ope...@li...
> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openjmx-devel mailing list
> Ope...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openjmx-devel mailing list
> Ope...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel

_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
Ope...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel