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

[Carlos Q. <car...@we...>]

On Wednesday 06 February 2002 00:06, Dmitri Colebatch wrote:
> > > > 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.
Yes beta2, no final yet and I agree about the MLET generation. We also 
discussed about using xdoclet for generation of configuration files, but 
that's somthing still in the future :-)

>
> cheers
> dim