Discussion:
[Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-01-31 12:17:04 UTC
Permalink
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:59:15 +1100
From: "Dmitri Colebatch" <***@ozemail.com.au>
To: <xdoclet-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
CC: Jérôme BERNARD <***@xtremejava.com>




hey all,



firstly - I've just checked in Jerome Bernard's JMX work from the
OpenJMX project, and put the first beta of openjmx in the lib directory
to enable the openjmx specific stuff to compile. the tags are:



class level:

jmx:mbean extends="" description=""



method level:

jmx:managed-constructor description=""

jmx:managed-constructor-parameter postition="" name="" description=""



jmx:managed-attribute description=""



jmx:managed-operation description=""

jmx:managed-operation-parameter postition="" name="" description=""



ok - its only a first cut, I changed a few things, so it will probably
need a little more work (tomorrow night) after Jerome has a look at my
changes. but it should work, hav ea look at the samples.



secondly - CustomerBMPBean seems to be breaking, something to do with
the dataobject. Anyone else seeing this? I had a super quick look, but
couldn't spot the cause. could someone give me a sanity check?



cheers

dim
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-01 06:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jérôme

This is really, really good. I had never used xdoclet before and I'm very
impressed. I think I'll move all my MBeans to use xdoclet

Regards
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:59:15 +1100
hey all,
firstly - I've just checked in Jerome Bernard's JMX work from the
OpenJMX project, and put the first beta of openjmx in the lib directory
jmx:mbean extends="" description=""
jmx:managed-constructor description=""
jmx:managed-constructor-parameter postition="" name="" description=""
jmx:managed-attribute description=""
jmx:managed-operation description=""
jmx:managed-operation-parameter postition="" name="" description=""
ok - its only a first cut, I changed a few things, so it will probably
need a little more work (tomorrow night) after Jerome has a look at my
changes. but it should work, hav ea look at the samples.
secondly - CustomerBMPBean seems to be breaking, something to do with
the dataobject. Anyone else seeing this? I had a super quick look, but
couldn't spot the cause. could someone give me a sanity check?
cheers
dim
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-02-01 07:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Yup.

I really ease JMX development. I was so much bored having to keep
updating my MBean interfaces & descriptions that I thought about this
feature.

As I said, I might add a mlet template (for generating mlet tags) with
merges (so that one file might contain more than one mlet tag).
Depending on what you do for "mbean initialization", a template would be
quite good too (for specifing in the implementation file the default value).

Dmitri commited a few hours ago (around 4 to 8 hours ago) some few
fixes, so check if you have the latest version. Ara (the other
administrator of XDoclet) told me that the "approximate" (we all know
what a plan mean on an open-source project :-)) new release of XDoclet
is for 2 or 3 weeks.

Have fun "templating" :-)

Jerome.

PS: I will make my best to complete the documentation about XDoclet.
There is a lot of things missing in it.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Hi Jérôme
This is really, really good. I had never used xdoclet before and I'm very
impressed. I think I'll move all my MBeans to use xdoclet
Regards
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:59:15 +1100
hey all,
firstly - I've just checked in Jerome Bernard's JMX work from the
OpenJMX project, and put the first beta of openjmx in the lib directory
jmx:mbean extends="" description=""
jmx:managed-constructor description=""
jmx:managed-constructor-parameter postition="" name="" description=""
jmx:managed-attribute description=""
jmx:managed-operation description=""
jmx:managed-operation-parameter postition="" name="" description=""
ok - its only a first cut, I changed a few things, so it will probably
need a little more work (tomorrow night) after Jerome has a look at my
changes. but it should work, hav ea look at the samples.
secondly - CustomerBMPBean seems to be breaking, something to do with
the dataobject. Anyone else seeing this? I had a super quick look, but
couldn't spot the cause. could someone give me a sanity check?
cheers
dim
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-01 07:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Yup.
I really ease JMX development. I was so much bored having to keep
updating my MBean interfaces & descriptions that I thought about this
feature.
Yes it really does. It is quite boring to write so many times the same stuff
:-)
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
As I said, I might add a mlet template (for generating mlet tags) with
merges (so that one file might contain more than one mlet tag).
Depending on what you do for "mbean initialization", a template would be
quite good too (for specifing in the implementation file the default value).
Yes, but that's a bit on the waiting. I guess it won't make it before beta2
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Dmitri commited a few hours ago (around 4 to 8 hours ago) some few
fixes, so check if you have the latest version. Ara (the other
administrator of XDoclet) told me that the "approximate" (we all know
what a plan mean on an open-source project :-)) new release of XDoclet
is for 2 or 3 weeks.
I got it from an update yesterday but is working quite fine. I'll also
contribute an expanded syntax highlight file for my editor jEdit
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Have fun "templating" :-)
Jerome.
PS: I will make my best to complete the documentation about XDoclet.
There is a lot of things missing in it.
It would be nice to include an example like

/**
*
* @jmx:mbean-operation description="...."
*/
public void operation(String name, String name2)

and so on.
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Hi Jérôme
This is really, really good. I had never used xdoclet before and I'm very
impressed. I think I'll move all my MBeans to use xdoclet
Regards
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:59:15 +1100
hey all,
firstly - I've just checked in Jerome Bernard's JMX work from the
OpenJMX project, and put the first beta of openjmx in the lib directory
jmx:mbean extends="" description=""
jmx:managed-constructor description=""
jmx:managed-constructor-parameter postition="" name="" description=""
jmx:managed-attribute description=""
jmx:managed-operation description=""
jmx:managed-operation-parameter postition="" name="" description=""
ok - its only a first cut, I changed a few things, so it will probably
need a little more work (tomorrow night) after Jerome has a look at my
changes. but it should work, hav ea look at the samples.
secondly - CustomerBMPBean seems to be breaking, something to do with
the dataobject. Anyone else seeing this? I had a super quick look, but
couldn't spot the cause. could someone give me a sanity check?
cheers
dim
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-02-01 07:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
PS: I will make my best to complete the documentation about XDoclet.
There is a lot of things missing in it.
It would be nice to include an example like
/**
*
*/
public void operation(String name, String name2)
and so on.
I should add the example I wrote in CVS. I will complete it and add
operations and constructors with more than one parameter too. What is
the best place for adding it?

Jerome.
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-01 07:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
PS: I will make my best to complete the documentation about XDoclet.
There is a lot of things missing in it.
It would be nice to include an example like
/**
*
*/
public void operation(String name, String name2)
and so on.
I should add the example I wrote in CVS. I will complete it and add
operations and constructors with more than one parameter too. What is
the best place for adding it?
It should go to examples/tools/xdoclet

If possible include a minimal build.xml for it
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Jerome.
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-02-01 07:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
PS: I will make my best to complete the documentation about XDoclet.
There is a lot of things missing in it.
It would be nice to include an example like
/**
*
*/
public void operation(String name, String name2)
and so on.
I should add the example I wrote in CVS. I will complete it and add
operations and constructors with more than one parameter too. What is
the best place for adding it?
It should go to examples/tools/xdoclet
Ok.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
If possible include a minimal build.xml for it
Sure. I will copy the build.xml file from another example and update it
in order to use the jmxdoclet ant task.
BTW we are supposed to add xdoclet.jar in CVS and to ship it with the
distribution...


Jerome.
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-01 07:50:05 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
I should add the example I wrote in CVS. I will complete it and add
operations and constructors with more than one parameter too. What is
the best place for adding it?
It should go to examples/tools/xdoclet
Ok.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
If possible include a minimal build.xml for it
Sure. I will copy the build.xml file from another example and update it
in order to use the jmxdoclet ant task.
BTW we are supposed to add xdoclet.jar in CVS and to ship it with the
distribution...
I think that's what we agreed before (don't forget the license), let us know
when it's stable enough and then we should put it in the lib dir and modify
the distribution task to include it possible for beta2
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Jerome.
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-02-01 08:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Carlos Quiroz
If possible include a minimal build.xml for it
Sure. I will copy the build.xml file from another example and update it
in order to use the jmxdoclet ant task.
BTW we are supposed to add xdoclet.jar in CVS and to ship it with the
distribution...
I think that's what we agreed before (don't forget the license), let us know
when it's stable enough and then we should put it in the lib dir and modify
the distribution task to include it possible for beta2
Ok. I am facing a classic "chicken and the egg" problem :-)
I have updated the example and am ready to commit BUT it will break
examples compilation since we need XDoclet to go through the MBean
implementation file in order to generate at least the interface. So I
have to add in CVS the xdoclet.jar file.

Now question is where? and should I do it?
Where to put the license of XDoclet too?

Jerome.
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-01 12:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Carlos Quiroz
If possible include a minimal build.xml for it
Sure. I will copy the build.xml file from another example and update it
in order to use the jmxdoclet ant task.
BTW we are supposed to add xdoclet.jar in CVS and to ship it with the
distribution...
I think that's what we agreed before (don't forget the license), let us know
when it's stable enough and then we should put it in the lib dir and modify
the distribution task to include it possible for beta2
Ok. I am facing a classic "chicken and the egg" problem :-)
I have updated the example and am ready to commit BUT it will break
examples compilation since we need XDoclet to go through the MBean
implementation file in order to generate at least the interface. So I
have to add in CVS the xdoclet.jar file.
Yes I noticed the problem. Perhaps you could add a test via setting an
available property which is true if the XXXMBean.java file is available, and
only then it will invoke the xdoclet task.
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Now question is where? and should I do it?
Where to put the license of XDoclet too?
I'd put the license at src/etc and the lib at lib/


I found a bug....
When the jmx:mbean extends="XXx" is set the YYYMBeanDescription class doesn't
extends MBeanDescriptionAdapter, instead doesn't extends anything
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-02-01 13:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Now question is where? and should I do it?
Where to put the license of XDoclet too?
I'd put the license at src/etc and the lib at lib/
Ok. I am going to do it right now.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
I found a bug....
When the jmx:mbean extends="XXx" is set the YYYMBeanDescription class doesn't
extends MBeanDescriptionAdapter, instead doesn't extends anything
This is why I suggested you to update your XDoclet CVS tree. I told it
to Dmitri yesterday and it is fixed since a few hours now.

I faced the same problem you have just after Dmitri commited 'cause I
use the "extends" feature everywhere :-)

Jerome.
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-01 13:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Now question is where? and should I do it?
Where to put the license of XDoclet too?
I'd put the license at src/etc and the lib at lib/
Ok. I am going to do it right now.
ok
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Carlos Quiroz
I found a bug....
When the jmx:mbean extends="XXx" is set the YYYMBeanDescription class doesn't
extends MBeanDescriptionAdapter, instead doesn't extends anything
This is why I suggested you to update your XDoclet CVS tree. I told it
to Dmitri yesterday and it is fixed since a few hours now.
I faced the same problem you have just after Dmitri commited 'cause I
use the "extends" feature everywhere :-)
Ok. I updated yesterday night or this morning but there were some bugs with
the serialveruid tags. Now it seems ok
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Jerome.
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-03 16:15:03 UTC
Permalink
On Friday 01 February 2002 17:06, Jérôme BERNARD wrote:
Hi Jérôme

I still have a bug with this but now it extends the
MBeanClass+MBeanDescriptionAdapter

Regards

P.S. I will wait for this to release
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Now question is where? and should I do it?
Where to put the license of XDoclet too?
I'd put the license at src/etc and the lib at lib/
Ok. I am going to do it right now.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
I found a bug....
When the jmx:mbean extends="XXx" is set the YYYMBeanDescription class
doesn't extends MBeanDescriptionAdapter, instead doesn't extends anything
This is why I suggested you to update your XDoclet CVS tree. I told it
to Dmitri yesterday and it is fixed since a few hours now.
I faced the same problem you have just after Dmitri commited 'cause I
use the "extends" feature everywhere :-)
Jerome.
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-02-03 16:44:03 UTC
Permalink
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.

Regards,
Jerome.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Quiroz" <***@welho.com>
To: <openjmx-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Hi Jérôme
I still have a bug with this but now it extends the
MBeanClass+MBeanDescriptionAdapter
Regards
P.S. I will wait for this to release
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-03 17:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
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

Regards
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Regards,
Jerome.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Hi Jérôme
I still have a bug with this but now it extends the
MBeanClass+MBeanDescriptionAdapter
Regards
P.S. I will wait for this to release
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-02-04 08:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
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.
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-04 09:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
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?
Hi I think is Ok.
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-02-04 09:36:04 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Perhaps a better documentation of this would be good, but I'm ok with the
feature
I am working on it :-)

Jerome.
Dmitri Colebatch
2002-02-04 09:50:12 UTC
Permalink
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" <***@xtremejava.com>
To: <openjmx-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
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.
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-02-01 13:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Ok. I am facing a classic "chicken and the egg" problem :-)
I have updated the example and am ready to commit BUT it will break
examples compilation since we need XDoclet to go through the MBean
implementation file in order to generate at least the interface. So I
have to add in CVS the xdoclet.jar file.
Yes I noticed the problem. Perhaps you could add a test via setting an
available property which is true if the XXXMBean.java file is available, and
only then it will invoke the xdoclet task.
XDoclet requires ant.jar to be in the classpath or somewhere else (but
then precised in the build.xml file) and I am wondering what I should
do. Should I check if there is an ant.jar file in the lib directory? Or
should I add ant.jar in CVS in the lib directory?

Jerome.
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-01 13:27:04 UTC
Permalink
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 01 February 2002 17:22
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Ok. I am facing a classic "chicken and the egg" problem :-)
I have updated the example and am ready to commit BUT it will break
examples compilation since we need XDoclet to go through the MBean
implementation file in order to generate at least the interface. So
I
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
have to add in CVS the xdoclet.jar file.
Yes I noticed the problem. Perhaps you could add a test via setting
an
Post by Carlos Quiroz
available property which is true if the XXXMBean.java file is
available,
and
Post by Carlos Quiroz
only then it will invoke the xdoclet task.
XDoclet requires ant.jar to be in the classpath or somewhere else (but
then precised in the build.xml file) and I am wondering what I should
do. Should I check if there is an ant.jar file in the lib directory?
Or
should I add ant.jar in CVS in the lib directory?
Ant.jar is in the build dir
Jerome.
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-02-01 13:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Ant.jar is in the build dir
Ok. Thank you. I have commited the example and the required changes now.

Jerome.
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-01 13:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Ant.jar is in the build dir
Ok. Thank you. I have commited the example and the required changes now.
I noticed and thanks a lot

what about a beta2 release this weekend?
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Jerome.
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-02-01 13:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Well fine for me. I guess the documentation has to be updated a bit and
I won't be free for working on it this week-end but if I am lucky I will
be able to finish it today. Anyway, I suppose that with the example,
some developers in need of this feature will be able to figure out how
to use it :-)

Jerome.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Ant.jar is in the build dir
Ok. Thank you. I have commited the example and the required changes now.
I noticed and thanks a lot
what about a beta2 release this weekend?
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-04 12:01:04 UTC
Permalink
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
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
extends=""
for overriding this default behaviour.
if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
straight
away.
I think this would be pretty OK
cheesr
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
What bug do you have?
I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add an
example
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
and that's it.
So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I will fix it
ASAP.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Again with the extend="XXX" which is expanded on the MBeanDescription
class
Post by Carlos Quiroz
to extends XXXMBeanDescription
Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
assumes
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-02-04 12:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Sounds good for me too.

Jerome.
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
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
extends=""
for overriding this default behaviour.
if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
straight
away.
I think this would be pretty OK
cheesr
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
What bug do you have?
I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add an
example
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
and that's it.
So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I will fix it
ASAP.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Again with the extend="XXX" which is expanded on the MBeanDescription
class
Post by Carlos Quiroz
to extends XXXMBeanDescription
Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
assumes
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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
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
Dmitri Colebatch
2002-02-04 19:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Ok - have a look in XDoclet CVS.

example usage:

/**
* Sample MBean implementation.
* @jmx:mbean name=":service=MyService" description="My wonderful service."
* @openjmx:description extends="AbstractMBeanDescription"
*/

Over next weekend, I'll get the XDoclet side of the docs done so that this
is all a little bit more "proper" (o:

cheers
dim


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jérôme BERNARD" <***@xtremejava.com>
To: <openjmx-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]


Sounds good for me too.

Jerome.
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
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
extends=""
for overriding this default behaviour.
if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
straight
away.
I think this would be pretty OK
cheesr
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
What bug do you have?
I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add an
example
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
and that's it.
So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I will fix it
ASAP.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Again with the extend="XXX" which is expanded on the MBeanDescription
class
Post by Carlos Quiroz
to extends XXXMBeanDescription
Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
assumes
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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
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
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-04 19:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Ok - have a look in XDoclet CVS.
/**
* Sample MBean implementation.
*/
Over next weekend, I'll get the XDoclet side of the docs done so that this
Thanks a lot Dimitri...

What is the name in jmx:mbean doing? Do you still have the jmx:mbean extends?

I can't build it from CVS because of some serialveruid classes which don't
compile, any idea?


Regards
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Sounds good for me too.
Jerome.
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
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
extends=""
for overriding this default behaviour.
if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
straight
away.
I think this would be pretty OK
cheesr
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
What bug do you have?
I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add an
example
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
and that's it.
So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I will fix it
ASAP.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Again with the extend="XXX" which is expanded on the MBeanDescription
class
Post by Carlos Quiroz
to extends XXXMBeanDescription
Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
assumes
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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
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
_______________________________________________
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
2002-02-04 20:09:02 UTC
Permalink
ahh shit... I didn't do a clean build, although I didn't change any classes, only templates, so it shouldn't be an issue. If you
still have a copy of a working jar, then just find the openjmx-descriptor.j template (named something like that) and replace it with
the one in XDoclet cvs.

I really do need to put that doco in dont I. let me know if the following doesn't seem logical:

@jmx:mbean defines things that are related to the spec. Its presence indicates that a MyServiceMBean interface will be created for
the MyService class. the extends parameter specifies an interface for the MyServiceMBean interface to extend.

@openjmx:description defines things that are related to the openjmx description adaptor class. The absense of it means that all
defaults will be followed for the openjmx description class. Its extends parameter allows the description class to extend a
specific class - this class should itself extend the openjmx abstract description class. If it is not there, and the MyService
class extends FooService, then the MyServiceMBeanDescription class will extend FooServiceMBeanDescription (are they the right class
names?). If there is no @openjmx:descriptione extends="" _and_ MyService doesn't extend anything, then MyServiceMBeanDescription
will simply extend the OpenJMX abstract description class (sorry - cant remember the name).

I'll do this in doco format, and it should seem clearer - any input is welcome (o:

cheers
dim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Quiroz" <***@welho.com>
To: <openjmx-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Ok - have a look in XDoclet CVS.
/**
* Sample MBean implementation.
*/
Over next weekend, I'll get the XDoclet side of the docs done so that this
Thanks a lot Dimitri...

What is the name in jmx:mbean doing? Do you still have the jmx:mbean extends?

I can't build it from CVS because of some serialveruid classes which don't
compile, any idea?


Regards
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Sounds good for me too.
Jerome.
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
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
extends=""
for overriding this default behaviour.
if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
straight
away.
I think this would be pretty OK
cheesr
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
What bug do you have?
I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add an
example
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
and that's it.
So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I will fix it
ASAP.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Again with the extend="XXX" which is expanded on the MBeanDescription
class
Post by Carlos Quiroz
to extends XXXMBeanDescription
Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
assumes
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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
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
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-04 20:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
ahh shit... I didn't do a clean build, although I didn't change any
classes, only templates, so it shouldn't be an issue. If you still have a
copy of a working jar, then just find the openjmx-descriptor.j template
(named something like that) and replace it with the one in XDoclet cvs.
Ok will do
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
I really do need to put that doco in dont I. let me know if the following
@jmx:mbean defines things that are related to the spec. Its presence
indicates that a MyServiceMBean interface will be created for the MyService
class. the extends parameter specifies an interface for the MyServiceMBean
interface to extend.
@openjmx:description defines things that are related to the openjmx
description adaptor class. The absense of it means that all defaults will
be followed for the openjmx description class. Its extends parameter
allows the description class to extend a specific class - this class should
itself extend the openjmx abstract description class. If it is not there,
and the MyService class extends FooService, then the
Is it that the class extends FooService or that the @jmx:mbean has parameter
extends="FooService". The latter seems the correct to me
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
MyServiceMBeanDescription class will extend FooServiceMBeanDescription (are
extends="" _and_ MyService doesn't extend anything, then
MyServiceMBeanDescription will simply extend the OpenJMX abstract
description class (sorry - cant remember the name).
it is MBeanDescriptionAdaptor
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Ok - have a look in XDoclet CVS.
/**
* Sample MBean implementation.
*/
Over next weekend, I'll get the XDoclet side of the docs done so that
Thanks a lot Dimitri...
What is the name in jmx:mbean doing? Do you still have the jmx:mbean extends?
I can't build it from CVS because of some serialveruid classes which don't
compile, any idea?
Regards
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Sounds good for me too.
Jerome.
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
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
extends=""
for overriding this default behaviour.
if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
straight
away.
I think this would be pretty OK
cheesr
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
What bug do you have?
I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add an
example
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
and that's it.
So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I will fix it
ASAP.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Again with the extend="XXX" which is expanded on the MBeanDescription
class
Post by Carlos Quiroz
to extends XXXMBeanDescription
Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
assumes
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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
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
_______________________________________________
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
Dmitri Colebatch
2002-02-04 20:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
@jmx:mbean defines things that are related to the spec. Its presence
indicates that a MyServiceMBean interface will be created for the MyService
class. the extends parameter specifies an interface for the MyServiceMBean
interface to extend.
@openjmx:description defines things that are related to the openjmx
description adaptor class. The absense of it means that all defaults will
be followed for the openjmx description class. Its extends parameter
allows the description class to extend a specific class - this class should
itself extend the openjmx abstract description class. If it is not there,
and the MyService class extends FooService, then the
extends="FooService". The latter seems the correct to me
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
MyServiceMBeanDescription class will extend FooServiceMBeanDescription (are
extends="" _and_ MyService doesn't extend anything, then
MyServiceMBeanDescription will simply extend the OpenJMX abstract
description class (sorry - cant remember the name).
it is MBeanDescriptionAdaptor
ta

cheers
dim
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-04 21:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
@jmx:mbean defines things that are related to the spec. Its presence
indicates that a MyServiceMBean interface will be created for the
MyService class. the extends parameter specifies an interface for the
MyServiceMBean interface to extend.
And then what does the name parameter do?
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
@openjmx:description defines things that are related to the openjmx
description adaptor class. The absense of it means that all defaults
will be followed for the openjmx description class. Its extends
parameter allows the description class to extend a specific class -
this class should itself extend the openjmx abstract description class.
If it is not there, and the MyService class extends FooService, then
the
parameter extends="FooService". The latter seems the correct to me
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
MyServiceMBeanDescription class will extend FooServiceMBeanDescription
(are they the right class names?). If there is no
@openjmx:descriptione extends="" _and_ MyService doesn't extend
anything, then
MyServiceMBeanDescription will simply extend the OpenJMX abstract
description class (sorry - cant remember the name).
it is MBeanDescriptionAdaptor
ta
cheers
dim
Dmitri Colebatch
2002-02-04 21:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
@jmx:mbean defines things that are related to the spec. Its presence
indicates that a MyServiceMBean interface will be created for the
MyService class. the extends parameter specifies an interface for the
MyServiceMBean interface to extend.
And then what does the name parameter do?
atm - nothing. when we have an mlet template I imagine it'll be used there. sound reasonable?

cheers
dim
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-04 21:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
@jmx:mbean defines things that are related to the spec. Its
presence indicates that a MyServiceMBean interface will be created
for the MyService class. the extends parameter specifies an
interface for the MyServiceMBean interface to extend.
And then what does the name parameter do?
atm - nothing. when we have an mlet template I imagine it'll be used
there. sound reasonable?
yes it does :-)
We just say that in the docs

Thanks a lot
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
Jérôme BERNARD
2002-02-05 06:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Post by Carlos Quiroz
And then what does the name parameter do?
atm - nothing. when we have an mlet template I imagine it'll be used there. sound reasonable?
Yes. This is a basic usage of this parameter. Moreover, it has been kept
for historic reasons too.


Jerome.
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-05 18:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
ahh shit... I didn't do a clean build, although I didn't change any
classes, only templates, so it shouldn't be an issue. If you still have a
copy of a working jar, then just find the openjmx-descriptor.j template
(named something like that) and replace it with the one in XDoclet cvs.
I really do need to put that doco in dont I. let me know if the following
@jmx:mbean defines things that are related to the spec. Its presence
indicates that a MyServiceMBean interface will be created for the MyService
class. the extends parameter specifies an interface for the MyServiceMBean
interface to extend.
@openjmx:description defines things that are related to the openjmx
description adaptor class. The absense of it means that all defaults will
be followed for the openjmx description class. Its extends parameter
allows the description class to extend a specific class - this class should
itself extend the openjmx abstract description class. If it is not there,
and the MyService class extends FooService, then the
MyServiceMBeanDescription class will extend FooServiceMBeanDescription (are
extends="" _and_ MyService doesn't extend anything, then
MyServiceMBeanDescription will simply extend the OpenJMX abstract
description class (sorry - cant remember the name).
Hi sorry to bother you again. I did a built from CVS just a few moments ago
and almost everything seems to work however
@openjmx:description extends="" will produce a class

MyServiceMBeanDescription extends Description

and
@openjmx:description extends="anything" will produce a class

MyServiceMBeanDescription extends anythingDescription

In the first case it should extend MBeanDescriptionAdaptor (notice that this
works fine if no @openjmx tag is present)
In the second case class should extend anything

Regards
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Ok - have a look in XDoclet CVS.
/**
* Sample MBean implementation.
*/
Over next weekend, I'll get the XDoclet side of the docs done so that
Thanks a lot Dimitri...
What is the name in jmx:mbean doing? Do you still have the jmx:mbean extends?
I can't build it from CVS because of some serialveruid classes which don't
compile, any idea?
Regards
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Sounds good for me too.
Jerome.
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
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
extends=""
for overriding this default behaviour.
if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
straight
away.
I think this would be pretty OK
cheesr
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
What bug do you have?
I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add an
example
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
and that's it.
So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I will fix it
ASAP.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Again with the extend="XXX" which is expanded on the MBeanDescription
class
Post by Carlos Quiroz
to extends XXXMBeanDescription
Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
assumes
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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
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
_______________________________________________
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
Dmitri Colebatch
2002-02-05 19:07:20 UTC
Permalink
sorry about that - fixed in CVS now.

cheers
dim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Quiroz" <***@welho.com>
To: <openjmx-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
ahh shit... I didn't do a clean build, although I didn't change any
classes, only templates, so it shouldn't be an issue. If you still have a
copy of a working jar, then just find the openjmx-descriptor.j template
(named something like that) and replace it with the one in XDoclet cvs.
I really do need to put that doco in dont I. let me know if the following
@jmx:mbean defines things that are related to the spec. Its presence
indicates that a MyServiceMBean interface will be created for the MyService
class. the extends parameter specifies an interface for the
MyServiceMBean
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
interface to extend.
@openjmx:description defines things that are related to the openjmx
description adaptor class. The absense of it means that all defaults will
be followed for the openjmx description class. Its extends parameter
allows the description class to extend a specific class - this class should
itself extend the openjmx abstract description class. If it is not there,
and the MyService class extends FooService, then the
MyServiceMBeanDescription class will extend FooServiceMBeanDescription (are
extends="" _and_ MyService doesn't extend anything, then
MyServiceMBeanDescription will simply extend the OpenJMX abstract
description class (sorry - cant remember the name).
Hi sorry to bother you again. I did a built from CVS just a few moments ago
and almost everything seems to work however
@openjmx:description extends="" will produce a class

MyServiceMBeanDescription extends Description

and
@openjmx:description extends="anything" will produce a class

MyServiceMBeanDescription extends anythingDescription

In the first case it should extend MBeanDescriptionAdaptor (notice that this
works fine if no @openjmx tag is present)
In the second case class should extend anything

Regards
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Ok - have a look in XDoclet CVS.
/**
* Sample MBean implementation.
*/
Over next weekend, I'll get the XDoclet side of the docs done so that
Thanks a lot Dimitri...
What is the name in jmx:mbean doing? Do you still have the jmx:mbean extends?
I can't build it from CVS because of some serialveruid classes which don't
compile, any idea?
Regards
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Sounds good for me too.
Jerome.
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
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
extends=""
for overriding this default behaviour.
if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
straight
away.
I think this would be pretty OK
cheesr
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
What bug do you have?
I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add an
example
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
and that's it.
So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I will fix it
ASAP.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Again with the extend="XXX" which is expanded on the MBeanDescription
class
Post by Carlos Quiroz
to extends XXXMBeanDescription
Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
assumes
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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
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
_______________________________________________
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
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-05 19:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
sorry about that - fixed in CVS now.
Thanks a lot

I'll commit the new version to openjmx cvs
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
ahh shit... I didn't do a clean build, although I didn't change any
classes, only templates, so it shouldn't be an issue. If you still have
a copy of a working jar, then just find the openjmx-descriptor.j template
(named something like that) and replace it with the one in XDoclet cvs.
I really do need to put that doco in dont I. let me know if the
@jmx:mbean defines things that are related to the spec. Its presence
indicates that a MyServiceMBean interface will be created for the
MyService
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
class. the extends parameter specifies an interface for the
MyServiceMBean
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
interface to extend.
@openjmx:description defines things that are related to the openjmx
description adaptor class. The absense of it means that all defaults
will be followed for the openjmx description class. Its extends
parameter allows the description class to extend a specific class - this
class
should
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
itself extend the openjmx abstract description class. If it is not
there, and the MyService class extends FooService, then the
MyServiceMBeanDescription class will extend FooServiceMBeanDescription
(are
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
extends="" _and_ MyService doesn't extend anything, then
MyServiceMBeanDescription will simply extend the OpenJMX abstract
description class (sorry - cant remember the name).
Hi sorry to bother you again. I did a built from CVS just a few moments ago
and almost everything seems to work however
@openjmx:description extends="" will produce a class
MyServiceMBeanDescription extends Description
and
@openjmx:description extends="anything" will produce a class
MyServiceMBeanDescription extends anythingDescription
In the first case it should extend MBeanDescriptionAdaptor (notice that
In the second case class should extend anything
Regards
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Ok - have a look in XDoclet CVS.
/**
* Sample MBean implementation.
*/
Over next weekend, I'll get the XDoclet side of the docs done so that
Thanks a lot Dimitri...
What is the name in jmx:mbean doing? Do you still have the jmx:mbean extends?
I can't build it from CVS because of some serialveruid classes which
don't compile, any idea?
Regards
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Sounds good for me too.
Jerome.
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
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
extends=""
for overriding this default behaviour.
if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
straight
away.
I think this would be pretty OK
cheesr
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
What bug do you have?
I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add an
example
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
and that's it.
So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I will fix it
ASAP.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Again with the extend="XXX" which is expanded on the
MBeanDescription
class
Post by Carlos Quiroz
to extends XXXMBeanDescription
Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
assumes
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-05 19:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
sorry about that - fixed in CVS now.
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
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
ahh shit... I didn't do a clean build, although I didn't change any
classes, only templates, so it shouldn't be an issue. If you still have
a copy of a working jar, then just find the openjmx-descriptor.j template
(named something like that) and replace it with the one in XDoclet cvs.
I really do need to put that doco in dont I. let me know if the
@jmx:mbean defines things that are related to the spec. Its presence
indicates that a MyServiceMBean interface will be created for the
MyService
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
class. the extends parameter specifies an interface for the
MyServiceMBean
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
interface to extend.
@openjmx:description defines things that are related to the openjmx
description adaptor class. The absense of it means that all defaults
will be followed for the openjmx description class. Its extends
parameter allows the description class to extend a specific class - this
class
should
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
itself extend the openjmx abstract description class. If it is not
there, and the MyService class extends FooService, then the
MyServiceMBeanDescription class will extend FooServiceMBeanDescription
(are
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
extends="" _and_ MyService doesn't extend anything, then
MyServiceMBeanDescription will simply extend the OpenJMX abstract
description class (sorry - cant remember the name).
Hi sorry to bother you again. I did a built from CVS just a few moments ago
and almost everything seems to work however
@openjmx:description extends="" will produce a class
MyServiceMBeanDescription extends Description
and
@openjmx:description extends="anything" will produce a class
MyServiceMBeanDescription extends anythingDescription
In the first case it should extend MBeanDescriptionAdaptor (notice that
In the second case class should extend anything
Regards
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Ok - have a look in XDoclet CVS.
/**
* Sample MBean implementation.
*/
Over next weekend, I'll get the XDoclet side of the docs done so that
Thanks a lot Dimitri...
What is the name in jmx:mbean doing? Do you still have the jmx:mbean extends?
I can't build it from CVS because of some serialveruid classes which
don't compile, any idea?
Regards
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Sounds good for me too.
Jerome.
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
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
extends=""
for overriding this default behaviour.
if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
straight
away.
I think this would be pretty OK
cheesr
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
What bug do you have?
I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add an
example
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
and that's it.
So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I will fix it
ASAP.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Again with the extend="XXX" which is expanded on the
MBeanDescription
class
Post by Carlos Quiroz
to extends XXXMBeanDescription
Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
assumes
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Dmitri Colebatch
2002-02-05 19:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
sorry about that - fixed in CVS now.
Sorry problems again
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?

but really, if someone has said it extends an empty class, then so be it. javac behaves the same way (o:

let me know what you'd like to see, and if its easy, then I have np with it.

cheers
dim
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-05 20:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
sorry about that - fixed in CVS now.
Sorry problems again
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

I'll leave as is and make a release
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
but really, if someone has said it extends an empty class, then so be it.
let me know what you'd like to see, and if its easy, then I have np with it.
cheers
dim
Dmitri Colebatch
2002-02-05 20:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Sorry problems again
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.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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.

cheers
dim
Carlos Quiroz
2002-02-05 20:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Sorry problems again
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.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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 :-)
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
Jérôme Bernard
2002-02-06 14:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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 :-)
I am beginning to work on the mlet template. Just need to dig a little
bit more in the merge system of XDoclet though.

I hope to have something working by the end of the week or the beginning
of the next one. Depending on how fast the service configuration goes
on, I might also add a template for it. When the format of the XML
document is defined, I will worked on it too.

Jerome.
Dmitri Colebatch
2002-02-06 19:12:01 UTC
Permalink
if you need any help - just ask.

cheers
dim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jérôme Bernard" <***@xtremejava.com>
To: <openjmx-***@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Jérôme Bernard
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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 :-)
I am beginning to work on the mlet template. Just need to dig a little
bit more in the merge system of XDoclet though.
I hope to have something working by the end of the week or the beginning
of the next one. Depending on how fast the service configuration goes
on, I might also add a template for it. When the format of the XML
document is defined, I will worked on it too.
Jerome.
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Bronwen Cassidy
2002-02-04 12:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Sounds Great :-)
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 February 2002 14:10
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Sounds good for me too.
Jerome.
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
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
extends=""
for overriding this default behaviour.
if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
straight
away.
I think this would be pretty OK
cheesr
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
What bug do you have?
I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add an
example
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
and that's it.
So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I
will fix it
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
ASAP.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Again with the extend="XXX" which is expanded on the
MBeanDescription
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
class
Post by Carlos Quiroz
to extends XXXMBeanDescription
Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
assumes
Post by Carlos Quiroz
that your extended interface also has a Description class
Yes. This is a design reason. I supposed that the class
which would be
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
extended would be a MBeanDescription class too. This is
also because I
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
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
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
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
bronwen.cassidy
2002-02-04 20:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Sounds fine, at least i understood it :-)
-----Original Message-----
Colebatch
Sent: 04 February 2002 22:08
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
ahh shit... I didn't do a clean build, although I didn't change
any classes, only templates, so it shouldn't be an issue. If you
still have a copy of a working jar, then just find the
openjmx-descriptor.j template (named something like that) and
replace it with
the one in XDoclet cvs.
I really do need to put that doco in dont I. let me know if the
@jmx:mbean defines things that are related to the spec. Its
presence indicates that a MyServiceMBean interface will be created for
the MyService class. the extends parameter specifies an
interface for the MyServiceMBean interface to extend.
@openjmx:description defines things that are related to the
openjmx description adaptor class. The absense of it means that all
defaults will be followed for the openjmx description class. Its
extends parameter allows the description class to extend a
specific class - this class should itself extend the openjmx
abstract description class. If it is not there, and the MyService
class extends FooService, then the MyServiceMBeanDescription
class will extend FooServiceMBeanDescription (are they the right class
MyService doesn't extend anything, then MyServiceMBeanDescription
will simply extend the OpenJMX abstract description class (sorry
- cant remember the name).
I'll do this in doco format, and it should seem clearer - any
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
Ok - have a look in XDoclet CVS.
/**
* Sample MBean implementation.
wonderful service."
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
*/
Over next weekend, I'll get the XDoclet side of the docs done
so that this
Thanks a lot Dimitri...
What is the name in jmx:mbean doing? Do you still have the
jmx:mbean extends?
I can't build it from CVS because of some serialveruid classes which don't
compile, any idea?
Regards
Post by Dmitri Colebatch
cheers
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Sounds good for me too.
Jerome.
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
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
extends=""
for overriding this default behaviour.
if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
straight
away.
I think this would be pretty OK
cheesr
dim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
What bug do you have?
I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add an
example
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Post by Jérôme BERNARD
and that's it.
So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I will fix it
ASAP.
Post by Carlos Quiroz
Again with the extend="XXX" which is expanded on the MBeanDescription
class
Post by Carlos Quiroz
to extends XXXMBeanDescription
Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
assumes
Post by Carlos Quiroz
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
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Openjmx-devel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
Loading...