I'm thinking current request to expand the MCBean and MBean component subtypes to include some of the recent additions is heading in the wrong direction. For example: | /** | * An enum of additional MBean:* ManagedComponent types not defined in {@link KnownComponentTypes}. | */ | public enum MBean | { | Platform, | Servlet, | Web, | WebApplication, | WebApplicationManager, | WebHost, | WebRequestProcessor, | WebThreadPool; | | public String type() | { | return this.getClass().getSimpleName(); | } | | public String subtype() | { | return this.name(); | } | | public ComponentType getType() | { | return new ComponentType(type(), subtype()); | } | } | | /** | * An enum of additional MCBean:* ManagedComponent types not defined in {@link KnownComponentTypes}. | */ | public enum MCBean | { | JTA, | MCServer, | Security, | ServerConfig, | ServerInfo, | ServicebindingManager, | ServicebindingMetadata, | ServiceBindingSet, | ServiceBindingStore; | | public String type() | { | return this.getClass().getSimpleName(); | } | | public String subtype() | { | return this.name(); | } | | public ComponentType getType() | { | return new ComponentType(type(), subtype()); | } | } | The issue is that whether or not these are MCBeans or MBeans is largely an irrelevant implementation detail. I'm thinking that we should be classifying these more like the datasource, jms destinations. I'm not going to change the component types we are currently using this late in the release. Rather, I'm thinking of adding support for multiple component types similar to the alias notion. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4231417#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...