Re: [jetty-dev] jmx with annotations

[Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I like part B of option 2.

Specifically I don't like:

@ManagedObject(...
@ManagedAttribute(...
public class Foo
{
 ...
}

because as joakim says there is separation between the field and it's management meta data.



But I also don't like:


@ManagedObject(...

public class Foo

{
   
   @ManagedAttribute(...
   private int field;
 ...
}

because hat field is private and should not be directly the target of management.


So I only really like:





@ManagedObject(...


public class Foo


{
   
   @ManagedAttribute(...
   public int getField();

 ...

}

I think name="" should be optional, so that if it is not given, then name is taken from the getter.

we should never need getter=, because it is the getter than we annotate.  We can have an optional setter= for non standard setters (or do we really need to support this?).

cheers

On 10 August 2012 07:52, Jesse McConnell <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ok, I have tinkered enough with our jmx and converting off the mbean
properties files to annotations to like and love and hate a couple of
different options.

so....which do people like most?

@ManagedObject("this is a managed object")
@ManagedAttribute(name="threads", description="the threads on this
object") // with optionally ->  readonly="true/false",
managed="true/false", proxied="true/false",
getter="getNonStandardThreads", setter="setNonStandardThreads"
..
..
..
public class Foo
{

  @ManagedOperation("run foo") // with optionally ->
managed="true/false", proxied="true/false", impact="ACTION, etc etc"
  public void foo()
  {

  }
}


OR!!!


@ManagedObject("this is a managed object")
public class Foo
{

  @ManagedAttribute(name="threads", description="the threads on this
object") // with optionally ->  readonly="true/false",
managed="true/false", proxied="true/false",
getter="getNonStandardThreads", setter="setNonStandardThreads"
  private int _threads;


  @ManagedOperation("run foo") // with optionally ->
managed="true/false", proxied="true/false", impact="ACTION, etc etc"
  public void foo()
  {

  }

  which also supports this for attributes that don't correspond to
fields which exist in a number of places

  @ManagedAttribute(name="threads", description="the threads on this
object") // with optionally ->  readonly="true/false",
managed="true/false", proxied="true/false",
getter="getNonStandardThreads", setter="setNonStandardThreads"
  public int getThreadCount()
  {

  }
}


I like the first because it brings all the attributes into the same
place and you don't have them spread over the fields and methods of
the class...but then I was discussing it with joakim some and he
doesn't like that the could fall out of sync the same way the mbean
properties files do over time which I can see as well.  Currently I
have it written the second way...  If the second way is more desirable
I will clean it up to automatically take care of things like _ being
removed to find the getters and setters and things like that, to make
the default more tolerant of our code style and the like. :)

Also, I have written some unit tests around the object mbean classes
now which I could also adapt into a testing framework for all of our
beans as well...which means I could wire in the jmx annotation
processing in unit tests in the build and fail it when things fall out
of sync which might address some of the concern with having them at
the Type (class) level.

opinions?

cheers,
jesse

--
Jesse McConnell <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
www.webtide.com – Developer advice, services and support from the
Jetty & CometD experts.
_______________________________________________
jetty-dev mailing list
jetty-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-dev