[infinispan-dev] [ISPN-134] Scanning MBean annotations for the jopr plugin

[Vladimir Blagojevic]

Galder,

Ok, let me get this straight. You are trying to auto-generate jopr 
plugin xml file like this one [1]?
Do you want me to do this since I have already done similar tasks?

Vladimir

[1] 
http://fisheye.jboss.org/browse/Infinispan/trunk/jopr-plugin/src/main/resources/META-INF/rhq-plugin.xml?r=590

On 09-09-29 11:48 AM, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Re: http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=161834
>
> I've opened that forum post in the JBoss Build project to figure out the
> best way to scan Mbean annotations. This is related to
> https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/ISPN-134
>
> I can use any of the methods used by Vladimir so far in a
> straightforward way cos the requirement here is to execute something
> before the jopr plugin is jarred and it needs to have access to the
> dependency classpath.
>
> A similar javadoc method as used for Config or JMX documentation could
> be used but these methods rely on the doclet being already built in some
> kind of artifact. I mentioned a possibility in the forum thread but
> another one would be for the jopr doclet that generates the XML to be in
> tools. However, tools depends on jopr, why is this so? Apparently this
> is due to TestNameVerifier but this has the list of modules hardcoded
> and opens File instances to them...
>
> The other possibility would be to have a main class executed but how
> would I get hold of the classpath? This would also mean that jopr might,
> assuming this was doable, need to depend on all the projects where MBean
> annotations could live, cos the most likely way to do this would be via
> some kind of mvn dependency classpath access.
>
> The best way IMO would be the jopr doclet method and this to live in
> tools project where I think it makes sense for it to live as we don't
> wanna ship it but only use it at build time. But for this to work,
> tools' dependencies need to be sorted out and tools stop depending on jopr.
>
> Thoughts? I'll have a think overnight.
>