[Openjmx-devel] xdoclet plugin

[Bordet, Simone]

Hi Dmitri,

been lurking here for a while, and not sure if this is an
issue, but the xdoclet work would be more than welcome in the xdoclet
repository if that would be appropriate, but if you already
have a nice way of blending it into xdoclet, then it might be
better as
you're suggesting.
just offering an option.

... that is to make the openjmx plugin for xdoclet part of the generic xdoclet distribution ?
If so, it will be wonderful !

Jerome, what's your opinion ?

Simon

[Dmitri Colebatch]

my opinion.... yes. I should say that I've been _very_ quiet recently, so you'd need a few other people (mainly Ara) to feel the
same way - I'm not sure if he currently has a stance on it, but the way I see it, its a win-win situation. people download openjmx
(with xdoclet) and learn about xdoclet.... people download xdoclet, and see it supports openjmx, and that it makes it easy(/ier) to
create MBeans.

if you guys would like it, I think its worth asking the question on xdoclet-dev to see what the feeling is.

cheers
dim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bordet, Simone" <***@compaq.com>
To: "OpenJMX (E-mail)" <openjmx-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: [Openjmx-devel] xdoclet plugin


Hi Dmitri,

been lurking here for a while, and not sure if this is an
issue, but the xdoclet work would be more than welcome in the xdoclet
repository if that would be appropriate, but if you already
have a nice way of blending it into xdoclet, then it might be
better as
you're suggesting.
just offering an option.

... that is to make the openjmx plugin for xdoclet part of the generic xdoclet distribution ?
If so, it will be wonderful !

Jerome, what's your opinion ?

Simon

[Carlos Quiroz]

Post by Dmitri Colebatch
my opinion.... yes. I should say that I've been _very_ quiet recently, so
you'd need a few other people (mainly Ara) to feel the same way - I'm not
sure if he currently has a stance on it, but the way I see it, its a
win-win situation. people download openjmx (with xdoclet) and learn about
xdoclet.... people download xdoclet, and see it supports openjmx, and that
it makes it easy(/ier) to create MBeans.

I agree completely it's a win-win solution :-)

Let's ask the xdoclet team

Post by Dmitri Colebatch
if you guys would like it, I think its worth asking the question on
xdoclet-dev to see what the feeling is.
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: [Openjmx-devel] xdoclet plugin
Hi Dmitri,

been lurking here for a while, and not sure if this is an
issue, but the xdoclet work would be more than welcome in the xdoclet
repository if that would be appropriate, but if you already
have a nice way of blending it into xdoclet, then it might be
better as
you're suggesting.
just offering an option.

... that is to make the openjmx plugin for xdoclet part of the generic
xdoclet distribution ? If so, it will be wonderful !
Jerome, what's your opinion ?
Simon
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel

[Dmitri Colebatch]

Hey all,

I've been quietly watching the openjmx project, and found them very interested in using xdoclet as part of their distribution.
they've done a few templates to assist in the development for jmx based components (my understanding), and were having a discussion
over how to best package it all up. I suggested that it might be worth looking at introducing the xdoclet related code to the
xdoclet distro, as I'd see it as a win-win situation. I'm not really sure if there is a current protocol for situations like this,
but thought it worth discussing.

anyone have any thoughts?

cheers
dim
(who is desperately trying to make some time outside work to actually _do_ something :)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Quiroz" <***@welho.com>
To: "Dmitri Colebatch" <***@bigpond.net.au>; "OpenJMX (E-mail)" <openjmx-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] xdoclet plugin

Post by Carlos Quiroz

Post by Dmitri Colebatch
my opinion.... yes. I should say that I've been _very_ quiet recently, so
you'd need a few other people (mainly Ara) to feel the same way - I'm not
sure if he currently has a stance on it, but the way I see it, its a
win-win situation. people download openjmx (with xdoclet) and learn about
xdoclet.... people download xdoclet, and see it supports openjmx, and that
it makes it easy(/ier) to create MBeans.

I agree completely it's a win-win solution :-)
Let's ask the xdoclet team

Post by Dmitri Colebatch
if you guys would like it, I think its worth asking the question on
xdoclet-dev to see what the feeling is.
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: [Openjmx-devel] xdoclet plugin
Hi Dmitri,

been lurking here for a while, and not sure if this is an
issue, but the xdoclet work would be more than welcome in the xdoclet
repository if that would be appropriate, but if you already
have a nice way of blending it into xdoclet, then it might be
better as
you're suggesting.
just offering an option.

... that is to make the openjmx plugin for xdoclet part of the generic
xdoclet distribution ? If so, it will be wonderful !
Jerome, what's your opinion ?
Simon
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel

_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel

[Ara Abrahamian]

Hi,
I don't have any objection.

I'm thinking about setting up a *template repository* section in
xdoclet's docs. So that we list/link-to all third party and
vendor-specific templates there. This is because generally the generated
code needs some special jar files in order to compile and it's not good
to put all jar files of the world in xdoclet's lib folder!

So, we can either: put the openjmx's templates/etc in xdoclet's
module/distribution, or put a link in xdoclet's template repository to
openjmx template stuff.

Option one is preferable if you think the stuff will be very popular and
generic, option two if you think otherwise. I live the decision to you
:o)

Cheers,
Ara.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 3:54 AM
Cc: OpenJMX (E-mail)
Subject: [Xdoclet-devel] Re: [Openjmx-devel] xdoclet plugin
Hey all,
I've been quietly watching the openjmx project, and found them very
interested in using xdoclet as part of their distribution.
they've done a few templates to assist in the development for jmx

based

components (my understanding), and were having a discussion
over how to best package it all up. I suggested that it might be

worth

looking at introducing the xdoclet related code to the
xdoclet distro, as I'd see it as a win-win situation. I'm not really

sure

if there is a current protocol for situations like this,
but thought it worth discussing.
anyone have any thoughts?
cheers
dim
(who is desperately trying to make some time outside work to actually

_do_

something :)
----- Original Message -----

<openjmx-

Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] xdoclet plugin

Post by Carlos Quiroz

Post by Dmitri Colebatch
my opinion.... yes. I should say that I've been _very_ quiet

recently, so

Post by Carlos Quiroz

Post by Dmitri Colebatch
you'd need a few other people (mainly Ara) to feel the same way -

I'm

not

Post by Carlos Quiroz

Post by Dmitri Colebatch
sure if he currently has a stance on it, but the way I see it, its

a

Post by Carlos Quiroz

Post by Dmitri Colebatch
win-win situation. people download openjmx (with xdoclet) and

learn

about

Post by Carlos Quiroz

Post by Dmitri Colebatch
xdoclet.... people download xdoclet, and see it supports openjmx,

and

that

Post by Carlos Quiroz

Post by Dmitri Colebatch
it makes it easy(/ier) to create MBeans.

I agree completely it's a win-win solution :-)
Let's ask the xdoclet team

Post by Dmitri Colebatch
if you guys would like it, I think its worth asking the question

on

Post by Carlos Quiroz

Post by Dmitri Colebatch
xdoclet-dev to see what the feeling is.
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: [Openjmx-devel] xdoclet plugin
Hi Dmitri,

been lurking here for a while, and not sure if this is an
issue, but the xdoclet work would be more than welcome in the

xdoclet

Post by Carlos Quiroz

Post by Dmitri Colebatch

repository if that would be appropriate, but if you already
have a nice way of blending it into xdoclet, then it might be
better as
you're suggesting.
just offering an option.

... that is to make the openjmx plugin for xdoclet part of the

generic

Post by Carlos Quiroz

Post by Dmitri Colebatch
xdoclet distribution ? If so, it will be wonderful !
Jerome, what's your opinion ?
Simon
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel

_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel

_______________________________________________
Xdoclet-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel

[Jérôme BERNARD]

Post by Bordet, Simone
[...]
Jerome, what's your opinion ?

Moving the templates in XDoclet could be a good option. However, I have
seen that there is already a JMX template (that is generating
interfaces) but I found it too simple. I was thinking somehow of
replacing it with the one I have written, but the mbean-description.j
template generating mbean descriptions is specific to OpenJMX. The only
OpenJMX "independant" templates could be the one generating the
interface and a new one (that I am writing) generating the Mlet file
(with a merge between multiple MBean mlet descriptions).

Regarding the problem Ara exposed about compilation, I have noticed that
there is already a jmxri.jar file in CVS. So why no replacing it with
openjmx.jar?

What I do not really like is that if XDoclet embeds OpenJMX (in order to
compile some samples) and if OpenJMX embeds XDoclet, we will make the
users wondering which versions they are using. It would even make things
more complicated for updating both projects regarding a new version of
the other.

Any thoughts?

Jerome.

[Dmitri Colebatch]

Post by Jérôme BERNARD

Post by Bordet, Simone
Jerome, what's your opinion ?

Moving the templates in XDoclet could be a good option. However, I have
seen that there is already a JMX template (that is generating
interfaces) but I found it too simple. I was thinking somehow of
replacing it with the one I have written, but the mbean-description.j
template generating mbean descriptions is specific to OpenJMX. The only
OpenJMX "independant" templates could be the one generating the
interface and a new one (that I am writing) generating the Mlet file
(with a merge between multiple MBean mlet descriptions).

I dont see any problems with replacing the vendor-neutral templates with ones you've developed. afaik the templates currently there
were done by Rickard, but haven't had a huge amount of work. As long as what you've done provides for everything currently there,
its a no-issue. We then just have a vendor section for the openjmx specific ones (as we do for the various ejb container
templates).

Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Regarding the problem Ara exposed about compilation, I have noticed that
there is already a jmxri.jar file in CVS. So why no replacing it with
openjmx.jar?

yeah, no problem there. from what I've read on this list, almost everything (excluding bugs in the RI) that runs on the RI, runs on
openjmx.

Post by Jérôme BERNARD
What I do not really like is that if XDoclet embeds OpenJMX (in order to
compile some samples) and if OpenJMX embeds XDoclet, we will make the
users wondering which versions they are using. It would even make things
more complicated for updating both projects regarding a new version of
the other.

yes - big problem then. would you want to be including xdoclet in your dist? the other option is to have no jars anywhere (in
distributions). so for xdoclet (I haven't proposed this recently, although the issue has been discussed a few times), we have the
openjmx jar in cvs, but not in a release, and then tell people that they need to get whatever jars they need for compiling generated
code (same goes for struts, webwork, castor, etc. etc.).

I'm tied up this weekend, but if you guys are ready next weekend, I'll have a look at getting things into xdoclet.

glad to see two projects working together so well (o:

cheers
dim

[Bordet, Simone]

Hi Jerome,

Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Moving the templates in XDoclet could be a good option.
However, I have
seen that there is already a JMX template (that is generating
interfaces) but I found it too simple. I was thinking somehow of
replacing it with the one I have written, but the mbean-description.j
template generating mbean descriptions is specific to
OpenJMX. The only
OpenJMX "independant" templates could be the one generating the
interface and a new one (that I am writing) generating the Mlet file
(with a merge between multiple MBean mlet descriptions).

Just great !

Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Regarding the problem Ara exposed about compilation, I have
noticed that
there is already a jmxri.jar file in CVS. So why no replacing it with
openjmx.jar?
What I do not really like is that if XDoclet embeds OpenJMX
(in order to
compile some samples) and if OpenJMX embeds XDoclet, we will make the
users wondering which versions they are using. It would even
make things
more complicated for updating both projects regarding a new
version of
the other.
Any thoughts?

XDoclet is more a tool than OpenJMX, so it is people that uses OpenJMX that will use also XDoclet, I guess not the viceversa.
People using xdoclet will *know* about openjmx.

Given so, we can ship in the openjmx distro the latest xdoclet jar, but I will not embed the xdoclet plugin sources in the openjmx CVS. I guess also that xdoclet is not shipping the jars for extension (for example it does not ship JBoss or Weblogic, so it won't ship OpenJMX).

The problem of mutual reference is only in CVS, and will not be present if we don't have the xdoclet extension in openjmx CVS, and put it in xdoclet CVS, as Dmitri and Ara suggested.

These are my thoughts... Any comment ?

Simon

[Jérôme BERNARD]

Post by Bordet, Simone
[...]

Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Regarding the problem Ara exposed about compilation, I have
noticed that
there is already a jmxri.jar file in CVS. So why no replacing it with
openjmx.jar?
What I do not really like is that if XDoclet embeds OpenJMX
(in order to
compile some samples) and if OpenJMX embeds XDoclet, we will make the
users wondering which versions they are using. It would even
make things
more complicated for updating both projects regarding a new
version of
the other.
Any thoughts?

XDoclet is more a tool than OpenJMX, so it is people that uses OpenJMX that will use also XDoclet, I guess not the viceversa.
People using xdoclet will *know* about openjmx.
Given so, we can ship in the openjmx distro the latest xdoclet jar, but I will not embed the xdoclet plugin sources in the openjmx CVS. I guess also that xdoclet is not shipping the jars for extension (for example it does not ship JBoss or Weblogic, so it won't ship OpenJMX).
The problem of mutual reference is only in CVS, and will not be present if we don't have the xdoclet extension in openjmx CVS, and put it in xdoclet CVS, as Dmitri and Ara suggested.
These are my thoughts... Any comment ?
Simon

So if I have understood, what you propose is to put what I did in
XDoclet and ship XDoclet with OpenJMX?
That's fine for me if this is what you mean. However, regarding
documentation, what would you do? Put the whole thing in XDoclet and ask
OpenJMX users to read it, or the contrary?

Jerome.

[Dmitri Colebatch]

Post by Jérôme BERNARD
So if I have understood, what you propose is to put what I did in
XDoclet and ship XDoclet with OpenJMX?
That's fine for me if this is what you mean. However, regarding
documentation, what would you do? Put the whole thing in XDoclet and ask
OpenJMX users to read it, or the contrary?

The XDoclet doco is pretty good, and has a nice format to it, which we try to have up to date (although you can imagine what that is
like :). Anyway, in the case of JBoss there has also been a chapter in the online doco outlining how to make an ejb using XDoclet.
This is basically exactly the same scenario, and I'd be suggesting the same solution.

FOr those of you who aren't familiar with the xdoclet doco, its online at http://xdoclet.sf.net - I'd suggest we add to that for
JMX, and then have a HOWTO in the openjmx distro.

cheers
dim

[Bordet, Simone]

Hi,

Post by Bordet, Simone

Post by Bordet, Simone
XDoclet is more a tool than OpenJMX, so it is people that

uses OpenJMX that will use also XDoclet, I guess not the viceversa.

Post by Bordet, Simone
People using xdoclet will *know* about openjmx.
Given so, we can ship in the openjmx distro the latest

xdoclet jar, but I will not embed the xdoclet plugin sources
in the openjmx CVS. I guess also that xdoclet is not shipping
the jars for extension (for example it does not ship JBoss or
Weblogic, so it won't ship OpenJMX).

Post by Bordet, Simone
The problem of mutual reference is only in CVS, and will not

be present if we don't have the xdoclet extension in openjmx
CVS, and put it in xdoclet CVS, as Dmitri and Ara suggested.

Post by Bordet, Simone
These are my thoughts... Any comment ?
Simon

So if I have understood, what you propose is to put what I did in
XDoclet and ship XDoclet with OpenJMX?
That's fine for me if this is what you mean.

Yes. But let's see what Carlos has to say before you commit in xdoclet CVS.

Post by Bordet, Simone
However, regarding
documentation, what would you do? Put the whole thing in
XDoclet and ask
OpenJMX users to read it, or the contrary?

Now I hate you :) Always too good questions !

Personally don't use xdoclet for other stuff, so I don't know: documentation for JBoss extension is in xdoclet or in JBoss ?
Personally I will prefer having the docs in OpenJMX, but I will follow what has been done for other xdoclet-JBoss/WebLogic/whatever projects

Simon

[Jérôme BERNARD]

Post by Bordet, Simone
[...]

Post by Jérôme BERNARD
However, regarding
documentation, what would you do? Put the whole thing in
XDoclet and ask
OpenJMX users to read it, or the contrary?

Now I hate you :) Always too good questions !
Personally don't use xdoclet for other stuff, so I don't know: documentation for JBoss extension is in xdoclet or in JBoss ?
Personally I will prefer having the docs in OpenJMX, but I will follow what has been done for other xdoclet-JBoss/WebLogic/whatever projects

I just had a look: there is some documentation in XDoclet AND jBoss
manual :-)
I think it make sense because the kind of information you search in the
two manual is different: in the XDoclet one you are interested about the
"internals" whereas in the OpenJMX manual you need some information
about how to help you coding your MBeans in an easier way. I am not sure
I explained well enough the diffence :-)

Jerome.

[Carlos Quiroz]

Hi,

Post by Bordet, Simone

Post by Bordet, Simone
XDoclet is more a tool than OpenJMX, so it is people that

uses OpenJMX that will use also XDoclet, I guess not the viceversa.

Post by Bordet, Simone
People using xdoclet will *know* about openjmx.
Given so, we can ship in the openjmx distro the latest

xdoclet jar, but I will not embed the xdoclet plugin sources
in the openjmx CVS. I guess also that xdoclet is not shipping
the jars for extension (for example it does not ship JBoss or
Weblogic, so it won't ship OpenJMX).

Post by Bordet, Simone
The problem of mutual reference is only in CVS, and will not

be present if we don't have the xdoclet extension in openjmx
CVS, and put it in xdoclet CVS, as Dmitri and Ara suggested.

Post by Bordet, Simone
These are my thoughts... Any comment ?
Simon

So if I have understood, what you propose is to put what I did in
XDoclet and ship XDoclet with OpenJMX?
That's fine for me if this is what you mean.
Yes. But let's see what Carlos has to say before you commit in xdoclet CVS.

Yes I think is ok. One question could you explain with some detail how are you
going to organize the build procedure

Post by Bordet, Simone
However, regarding
documentation, what would you do? Put the whole thing in
XDoclet and ask
OpenJMX users to read it, or the contrary?
Now I hate you :) Always too good questions !
Personally don't use xdoclet for other stuff, so I don't know: documentation
for JBoss extension is in xdoclet or in JBoss ? Personally I will prefer
having the docs in OpenJMX, but I will follow what has been done for other
xdoclet-JBoss/WebLogic/whatever projects
Simon

[Jérôme BERNARD]

Post by Carlos Quiroz
[...]

Post by Bordet, Simone
Yes. But let's see what Carlos has to say before you commit in xdoclet CVS.

Yes I think is ok. One question could you explain with some detail how are you
going to organize the build procedure

We will add an Ant task called let's say jmxdoclet that will just need
xdoclet.jar. So it will be fairly easy to do the build procedure I guess...

Jerome.

[Bordet, Simone]

Hi,

Post by Jérôme BERNARD
I just had a look: there is some documentation in XDoclet AND jBoss
manual :-)
I think it make sense because the kind of information you
search in the
two manual is different: in the XDoclet one you are
interested about the
"internals" whereas in the OpenJMX manual you need some information
about how to help you coding your MBeans in an easier way. I
am not sure
I explained well enough the diffence :-)

You did :)

So, double work for you ? Just kidding...

Simon

[Jérôme BERNARD]

Post by Bordet, Simone
Hi,

Post by Jérôme BERNARD
I just had a look: there is some documentation in XDoclet AND jBoss
manual :-)
I think it make sense because the kind of information you
search in the
two manual is different: in the XDoclet one you are
interested about the
"internals" whereas in the OpenJMX manual you need some information
about how to help you coding your MBeans in an easier way. I
am not sure
I explained well enough the diffence :-)

You did :)
So, double work for you ? Just kidding...

Now I am going to hate you :-)

Jerome.