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

[Dmitri C. <di...@bi...>]

> > > Sorry problems again
> > > now @openjmx:description extends="" generates a class which doesn't
> > > extends anything but it has the extends word
> > >
> > > like MyServiceMBeanDescription extends
> > >
> > > @openjmx:description extends="XXX"  generates the right
> > >
> > > MyServiceMBeanDescription extends XXX
> >
> > I think thats fair enough, I'm not sure what behaviour you'd prefer -
> > perhaps ignore the tag altogether?
> Actually now that you mention it, it is a debatable point of view. Then the
> right way to write should be
> @openjmx:description extends="openjmx.MBeanDescriptionAdaptor"
>
> in case you explicitely need it. That's probably clearer

Any imports in the implementation class will also be imported into the MBeanDescriptionAdaptor class.  so the user should import the
superclass there, and the generated file will import it.  This is how we've been doing it with the ejb stuff.  although I completely
see the argument for fqcn.  Typically tho - its easier this way.

> I'll leave as is and make a release

still beta yes?  do we want to get mlet generation done before final release?  I think it'd be a nice add-on.  I hate those MLET
files (o:  of course, completely your call.

cheers
dim