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.
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
|
