Re: [Springframework-developer] Simplification of Spring JMX

[Colin S. <col...@ex...>]

+1

Rob Harrop wrote:

> All,
>
> I am considering removing the notion of the MBeanInvoker from Spring 
> JMX along with the Spring implementation of ModelMBean. There are two 
> reasons for this:
>
> 1. I am not sure of the value offered by this approach given that the 
> performance difference between the JDK invoker and the CGLIB invoker 
> is hardly noticeable as shown by the tests in the sandbox.
> 2. All JMX implementations come with RequiredModelMBean which is 
> already supported by Spring JMX - we don't really need another 
> implementation if there is no benefit and I would prefer not to have 
> keep modifying the ModelMBeanImpl class to keep up with the JMX spec.
>
> Originally, I had thought that having our own ModelMBean would enable 
> us to improve performance but that turns out not to be true, instead 
> we just have a model that is more complicated. I propose to remove the 
> MBeanInvoker concept altogether and use the RequiredModelMBean class 
> as the standard but provide the ability for other implementations to 
> be plugged in a later date should the need arise in the future.
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> Rob
>
> P.S. - Keith - I know you said this from the beginning and you were 
> right. Don't say I told you so :)
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE
> FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines
> robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match
> for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8
> _______________________________________________
> Springframework-developer mailing list
> Spr...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer