Re: RequiredModelMBean

Roland,

Provided Mx4jModelMBean respects the defined semantics of 
RequiredModelMBean in every way this would be fine.  Whether you would 
*want* it to do so is another question.

Regards,
Éamonn McManus   JMX Spec Lead   http://weblogs.java.net/blog/emcmanus/


Roland Huss wrote:
> Hi Eamonn,
> 
> Eamonn McManus wrote:
> 
> 
>>An implementation of a JSR, such as JSR 3 (JMX API), must exactly
>>respect the Java-language signatures of every class specified by that
>>JSR.  It would not be legal for the MX4J implementation to add any new
>>methods or change the publicly-visible inheritance of any class in the
>>javax.management.* namespace.
> 
> 
> Ok, I see your point. So instead of inheritance, I would like to ask for a delegation
> model for Mx4j's RequiredModelMBean where the all method are delegated to a Mx4jModelMBean
> implementation. This wouldn't affect the signature of RequiredModelMBean but has the
> advantage to freely use Mx4jModelMBean within another JMX implementation.
> 
> ciao...


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the 'Do More With Dual!' webinar happening
July 14 at 8am PDT/11am EDT. We invite you to explore the latest in dual
core and dual graphics technology at this free one hour event hosted by HP,
AMD, and NVIDIA.  To register visit http://www.hp.com/go/dualwebinar