JMX integration

[talbeno]

Hi,
Just a quick question please.

In the MicroKernel design url you mention under the "Jboss Server Implications" that "an MBeanServer will be instantiated during the bootstrap." You also mention in the top design page this - "Layered approach - advanced features are optional, e.g. hot-deploy, jmx or cluster support."

I would wish to explore using the new MicroContainer (kernel?) with both JMX and clustering capabilities. Will it be a configuration issue to have the Jboss JMX server functioning as described above?

Also on a different issue - do you plan to add a JMS layer on top of it as well? It might be very useful.

Thanks,
Tal Beno

[talbeno]

I take back my 2nd JMS question since you have already kind of answered it regarding JDBC (stating the microcontainer has nothing to do with the application behavior).

Yet I am still curious if you will provide an optional JMX layer and how.
Thanks.

[bill.burke]

What the JBoss 4 JMX Kernel provides is lifecycle, configuration/dependency injection, dependency management. JBoss Microcontainer is decoupled from JMX and is just POJOs. You are aware that JMX comes with JDK5? If you want a nice remoting abstraction I suggest EJB3 (very simple programming model) or our AOP Remoting stuff.

[arvinder]

Hi Bill

Is there currently a pojo wrapper for the jmx mbean server ? The reason I ask is the requirement of running jboss-messaging standalone without JBoss AS, since jboss-messaging depends on jboss-remoting + the mbean server.

I'm actually loking at this http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBESB-13 and have posted a message on the messaging forums. So for the moment I'm looking at writing the pojo wrappers to services that support jboss-messaging. Right now i'm not sure whats in cvs w.r.t what I have mentioned.

TIA

[bkeh12]

JBoss Microcontainer is decoupled from JMX and is just POJOs.

see http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBMICROCONT-71
and http://jira.jboss.com/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolutionIds=-1&pid=12310060&fixfor=12310391 and org.jboss.aop.microcontainer.prototype in cvs

I believe that will soon

[arvinder]

Hi there

JBoss Microcontainer is decoupled from JMX and is just POJOs.

I realise this hence my question regarding a pojo wrapper or factory for the mbean server. I looked at jboss-head last night and was under the impression jboss 5.0 will be using this Microcontainer, I couldn't see anything in the code base to show this. Can anyone point me towards a specific module in cvs that has/shows/tests the Microcontainer starting up the jmx server. In any case I'll see if Ovidiu Feodorov has any comments.

http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=80627
http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBMESSAGING-26

TIA

[bkeh12]

Hi,
try see this
jboss-head -> aspects -> src -> test50 -> org-> jboss -> test -> microcontainer-> test -> JMXDecoratedTestCase.java
jboss-head -> aspects -> src -> resources->org->jboss->test->microcontainer->test->JMXDecoratedTestCase.xml


ps : note this is a prototype ... ;-)

[talbeno]

I understand all of the above and yet wonder how well the new microcontainer is going to cover the MBean-server capabilities which were available by the old microkernel. I am surely aware of the JDK5 new content but having your own implementation is specification is a different thing. For instance with an MBeanServer I could use HTTP and RMI connections (darn important for going through firewalls), have cascading servers, run auto-detection or have an HTML adapter. Would this be supported as well?

Sorry for nagging! I probably haven't got through your intentions yet.
Thanks! Tal

[starksm64]

There is zero difference. If jmx is enabled in the mc its enabled with whatever the implementation provides.

[talbeno]

Seems like the only thing I haven't understood yet is whether you mean that the user can enable the JMX as part of the inherent features of the mc, or did you mean that she needs to add it just as another POJO into the container.
I guess that the later is less attractive as mc and the JMX implementation may collide on some management functionalities.

Thanks again!

Tal Beno
Senior system architect
Mercury ([e-mail])

[starksm64]

That is an MC configuration detail. Either jmx is an aspect integrated across MC beans, or its just another bean in the MC.