On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > > Given the complexity of the app and the fact that it has many external > > deps ( including JMX, etc), wouldn't be a better idea to create a separate > > repository, in the style of jakarta-tomcat-jasper and > > jakarta-tomcat-connector ? > > > > Historically, the admin UI for each version of Tomcat has lived with the > sources of that version. Because the details are so initmately dependent > on the internals of that particular server version, it makes sense to me > that we continue the convention in this case as well.
Again, my point was that the proposed architecture is pretty complex. All historic admin UIs were minimal, with no external dependencies, and indeed very dependent on the internals of a paticular server version. Regarding external dependencies, I would be -1 on starting an app based on JMX as long as we don't have a clear answer from the PMC/ASF regarding the policy on binary licences. I love JMX, and I would be happy if ASF allows any redistributable jar to be used ( or at least decide on a number of licences that are allowed, or anything else ). But I would like to see a mail from the PMC or ASF clarifying this. Regarding dependencies - the idea of JMX is to separate the instrumentation ( which is indeed very dependent of each container ) from the agent and management application. I don't think the agent and management application should be specific to tomcat, and given the complexity it should be in a separated sub-project ( or even project !) > > >From that URL it seems the app will use: > > - JMX > > - Soap > > - Struts > > - RMI > > - ??? > > > > While having an admin interface would be great, discussing and agreeing on > > the overal architecture would be even better - it seems a bit too heavy ( > > at least for my taste ). ( "simpler is better" :-) > > > > The functional specs were posted quite a long time ago and got zero > comment -- IMHO the best way to get opinions is to follow your example and > just commit some code :-). That way, people can take a look, kick the > tires, and take a look around. Well, zero comment is a comment :-) This seems quite a big thing - and discussing and agreeing on the goals, technology and design is quite important. I'm +1 on adding a JMX layer ( assuming the licence problem is resolved ). How we do that - it's a different question, I think model mbeans would be a good idea (compared with adding another 20..30 interfaces, if simple MBeans are to be used ). ( everything that is configurable will have to have a MBean in the second case ). I also thing the exposed model should be independent of the internal implementation. For the rest ( management console, struts/soap, etc ) - I think it shouldn't be a tomcat-specific thing, and tomcat should be neutral to the management application. Costin
