On 3/21/11 3:40 AM, Heiko Braun wrote:
what it actually means is:
give me all child names below the child<name> of node<address>
why not simply refer to the child<name> through the address:
w/o any parameters?
Doesn't work for JMX. An address needs to be convertible into the
key/value pairs that go into the ObjectName.
A layer in between the end user and the raw management API, i.e. the CLI
or the DomainHttpServer, could detect addresses that aren't entirely
composed of pairs and then have some logic to turn the "single" element
into an attribute. That requires operation-specific logic in the CLI and
Changing PathAddress to optionally support an "undefined" value for the
final element in the address is a possibility. Add overloaded static
factory methods that take a boolean to enable this; by default disabled
(throwing an exception if found) so all existing operation handlers are
safe. This would essentially make this kind of address part of the core
API and avoid special handling in the CLI/DomainHttpServer.
Doing this last bit makes it possible to support that kind of address.
But I'm not convinced it's worth it. There's the JMX issue, where
suddenly the way things work is different between interfaces. And then
there are problems like the operation description for any operation that
supports this kind of address. Operation descriptions say nothing about
the address the operation is applied to. They describe parameters and
results. But now we've pushed a parameter into the address.
On Mar 18, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat