Mircea Markus wrote:
> Brian Stansberry wrote:
>> Mircea Markus wrote:
>>> Manik Surtani wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 25 Mar 2009, at 13:19, Adrian Cole wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> tough call.. the jmx user may not have access to the log to see the
>>>>> warning anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would prefer an info notification of coarse registration events
>>>>> then
>>>>> warn or trace depending on whether the name is overloaded. That
>>>>> would
>>>>> seem more grep friendly for unixy folks who scrape logs for
>>>>> things. I
>>>>> think a mandatory index would me simpler in that case, although
>>>>> slightly confusing for folks who don't have more then one.
>>>>
>>>> +1 on the mandatory index.
>>> I think mandatory indexes would confuse users, as they configured
>>> an jmxDomain in clear text and see an different on the server. Even
>>> more, they might want to enforce an domainName for other reasons
>>> (e.g. thay have other modules expose under that domain name etc).
>>> I would like the user to be aware of the fact that there is an
>>> conflict and take action, rather than dig through logs first and
>>> then curse the developer who wrote the code.
>>> What about:
>>> 1) forbid a registration under same domain. Cache won't start as
>>> registration is done at startup, an exception will be thrown.
>>> 2) add an configuration attribute named forceAutoIncrement
>>> (default=false). The user would have to manually enable it.Also,
>>> the error message at 1) would inform him about this attribute, so
>>> the change should be quite straight
>>
>> I think an option to name the manager is needed. I'll be running
>> multiple managers in the same AS, and people are going to need to be
>> able to access them by name, not by a number that varies based on
>> what order the managers are started in.
> I think jmxDomain does just that, i.e. groups all element from a
> CacheManager under the same common structure.
> The scenario we're talking about is when people configure the same
> name (or do not configure anything and same default is used), what
> will happen with the second cache manager?
Not sure that should be allowed. JMX implementations do moan (via a
InstanceAlreadyExistsException) when the name already exists, why
shouldn't we? You know have the opportunity to give it a different
name (side: we couldn't with JBC -
https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBCACHE-1485), so people should
make use of it IMO.
This is the default behavior: if a second instance is stared
under the
same domain, then an exception is being thrown indicating that (during
cache startup). At this point the user can change domain name, or just
enable "forceAutoIncrement" (which is "try using the configured domain,
but if it is already taken try using the next one"). Either way, the
user *is notified* that a domain conflict exist and he *must take
action* in order to avoid that - nothing done under the hood.
>>>> I am guessing this is in
CacheJmxRegistration.getJmxDomain()? Why
>>>> does index start at '2' ? :-) Ah I see - so you would have
>>>> "cacheDomain", "cacheDomain2",
"cacheDomain3", etc. Hmm... I still
>>>> prefer "cacheDomain:0", "cacheDomain:1", etc. More
consistent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> my 2p..
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Mircea Markus
>>>>> <mircea.markus(a)jboss.com
<mailto:mircea.markus@jboss.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> Manik Surtani wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When running the test suite I see:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WARN [ComponentsJmxRegistration] (pool-1-thread-9) Jmx
domain
>>>>>>> already in
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this as severe a problem as a WARN? It should be entirely
>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>> that people register > 1 cache managers with the same
MBean
>>>>>>> Server. Perhaps
>>>>>>> rather than log such a severe warning, we should use a
counter
>>>>>>> if the domain
>>>>>>> is repeated? E.g.,
>>>>>>>
jmxDomain:<managerInstanceNumber>:global:<componentName>
>>>>>>>
jmxDomain:<managerInstanceNumber>:<cachename>:<componentName>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that's already there ;) an index is appended to the domain
name,
>>>>>> if the
>>>>>> domain is already registered(same as you suggested, only that
>>>>>> first domain
>>>>>> won't have any index).
>>>>>> Phaps I can drop the warning (replace with trace), but I still
>>>>>> might want
>>>>>> people to know that there is a name conflict : e.g. they might
>>>>>> lookup the
>>>>>> cache in JMX programmatically and work with a totally different
>>>>>> cache
>>>>>> instance..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Manik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25 Mar 2009, at 10:45, Mircea Markus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Manik Surtani wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 25 Mar 2009, at 06:22, Mircea Markus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> implementation finished.
>>>>>>>>>> Following features were added, compared with
JBossCache:
>>>>>>>>>> 1) jmx domain care be specified now.
>>>>>>>>>> 2) an MBeanServer lookup can be configured, to
lookup the
>>>>>>>>>> server on
>>>>>>>>>> which the components will be registered - in prev
version the
>>>>>>>>>> PlatformMBeanServer was hardcoded (now it's
only an default)
>>>>>>>>>> 3) missing unit tests were added for all the
annotated MBeans
>>>>>>>>>> 4) jmx is now configured in two places:
>>>>>>>>>> - in global section: to enable exposure of
shared
>>>>>>>>>> information (rpc
>>>>>>>>>> manager info, cache manager info)
>>>>>>>>>> e.g <globalJmxStatistics
enabled="true" jmxDomain="infinispan"
>>>>>>>>>>
mBeanServerLookup="org.infinispan.jmx.PerThreadMBeanServerLookup"
>>>>>>>>>> />
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - for each cache, where cache specific info is
>>>>>>>>>> configured(mainly
>>>>>>>>>> interceptors, which now are cache specific)
>>>>>>>>>> e.g. <jmxStatistics
enabled="false"/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How are objects registered in JMX? I'm guessing
>>>>>>>>> jmxDomain:<component>
>>>>>>>>> for stuff on the cache manager, and
>>>>>>>>> jmxDomain:<cacheName>:<component> for
>>>>>>>>> cache-level components?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jmxDomain:global: [component name] for cache manager
stuff
>>>>>>>> for cache level is as you mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>> Manik
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Manik Surtani
>>>>>>>>> Lead, JBoss Cache
>>>>>>>>>
http://www.jbosscache.org
>>>>>>>>> manik(a)jboss.org <mailto:manik@jboss.org>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Manik Surtani
>>>>>>> Lead, JBoss Cache
>>>>>>>
http://www.jbosscache.org
>>>>>>> manik(a)jboss.org <mailto:manik@jboss.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Manik Surtani
>>>> Lead, JBoss Cache
>>>>
http://www.jbosscache.org
>>>> manik(a)jboss.org <mailto:manik@jboss.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev