Re: [Springframework-developer] Spring & JMX

[Ivan R. <iv...@we...>]

Rob Butler wrote:

>>There are some similarities between JMX and Spring. The JMX spec.
>>defines a MLET service, a class capable of loading JMX components
>>(MBean) based on the XML-like file format.
> 
> The XML format is usually too different between different JMX Kernel
 > implementations to get any sort of portability at all.

   Is it? Because MLET is part of the standard spec. But that's
   not important as MLET is not good enough anyway.


>>I have always thought that Spring could play well with JMX, creating
>>MBeans in the same manner as it creates "plain" beans. There are two
>>things to do:
>>
>>1) Detect beans that are also mbeans and register them with the
>>    MBeanServer. This should be very easy to do. Spring already
>>    supports bean initialization, we have a name - there is only
>>    call to mserver instance missing. Of course, there are more
>>    complex things to deal with but not much.
> 
> 
> Only if you have to do something special..  There is actually a
 > much better way in my opinion -- see below.

   I agree what you've said below but you still need to support
   static mbeans. It would make no sense to have to supply additional
   configuration for a static mbean :)



>>2) Expose normal beans as JMX MBeans. This would allow any bean to
>>    be manipulated through the JMX protocol. This is also easy to do
>>    although there is more work involved.
>  
> Actually, I think this can be a lot less work if done right, and
 > provide portability too.

   Yes, that is great. The only drawback would be that it will
   complicate the configuration file further. Perhaps Spring should
   support another configuration file with a different syntax. And
   this configuration file would use bean names to reference beans and
   then specify which attributes and methods should be exposed to JMX.


> Hope this helps out.  When I get some spare time I hope to do a lot
 > of these things with Spring - and contribute some patches too.  But
> that is going to have to wait a little while. :(

   Same here. Actually I am just starting with an JMX project but
   I think I will use the MX4J syntax for the time being (I don't need
   JMX implementation portability). I am on a tight deadline.


-- 
ModSecurity (http://www.modsecurity.org)
[ Open source IDS for Web applications ]