[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of Management Features on JBoss] - Re: Applying persisted changes.

"scott.stark(a)jboss.org" wrote : | I don't understand why the ManagedObjectBuilder for the destination class is not seen. I'll try to look into why that is. | Looks like the MODefinitions are getting installed too late (as they are in deploy/messaging). Moving those definitions to deployers/ seems to work, although in the end this should not be needed? "scott.stark(a)jboss.org" wrote : | Ok, I see. We need to move the managed object factory extension behavior out of the deployers. I'll start looking at that. | I think that will simplify things for the attachment persistence. Last week i was briefly looking into something similar. It's basically not that obvious, as IMHO parts of what ServiceMetaDataICF and BeanMetaDataICF are doing should be moved out. On the other hand looking at the connection factory ICFs - those actually only do operations on the ConnectionFactoryMetaData itself, which should be fine. So i think that one of the goals should be to have a clearer separation between the metaData operations and the extension behavior. Although refactoring ICFs totally out of this process could be quite hard. Maybe creating something new but similar for the extension behavior could be easier? Leaving the meta data operations in the responsablitly of the ICFs (setValue, getValue). On top of that the extension behavior like overriding the moClass, getting the values from the MBeanServer or the MCBean... Also adding and creating a new attribute to the meta data e.g. ServiceAttributeMD could be done by the extensions. Is similar to what you have in mind? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4225602#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...