dev@glassfish.java.net

Re: Request feedback on Glassfish V3 Prelude Monitoring one pager

From: Sreenivas Munnangi <Sreenivas.Munnangi_at_Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:09:18 -0700

Lloyd Chambers wrote:
> Comments on comments—
>
> With the structure of domain.xml changing substantially in some area,
> combined with the lack of a grammar and aliasing, backward
> compatibilty for dotted names should be done only as a compatibility
> layer, and even then will have its challenges.
>
To avoid such compatability issues in future, is it a good idea to come
up with a grammar/spec. for V3 ?
> Lloyd
>
> On Jul 17, 2008, at 11:37 PM, Nazrul Islam wrote:
>
>> Prashanth Abbagani wrote:
>>> Initial draft of Monitoring one pager for V3 Prelude is available.
>>> Please take a took and provide feedback, comments, concerns, if any.
>>>
>>> http://wiki.glassfish.java.net/Wiki.jsp?page=GFV3MonitoringOnePager
>> Thanks for starting this thread. Here are some notes from today's
>> review...
>> 1) Section 4.1.2.3.3: Please ensure that the object view hierarchy
>> is aligned with GFv2 and the dotted names are backward compatible.
>> 2) Section 4.1.2.5: Please ensure that monitor_type is correctly
>> mapped for GFv2 types also.
>> 3) Section 4.1.2.5: asadmin set command does not work without
>> domain.xml persistence.
>> 4) Section 4.12: Please specify how GFv2 monitoring levels (OFF, LOW,
>> HIGH) will work.
>> 5) Please ensure that this works for both JDK 5 and JDK6.
>> 6) Please expose the monitoring information with JMX MBeans. REST
>> support may come post Prelude.
>> 7) Please check all the APIs for naming consistency and align.
>> 8) Secion 4.1.1.1: Please specify that appName can be null.
>> 9) Section 4.3: Please specify what is in scope for GFv3 Prelude.
>> 10) Section 4.4: Please clearly specify what is out of scope so that
>> future design goals are understood.
>> 11) Section 4.5.1.2: Do we need to expose the probe annotations
>> (@ProbeName, @ProbeParams, @MethodEntry) and ProbeProviderInfo?
>> 12) Section 4.5.1.2: Is there any risk with exposing /remove/ method
>> on TreeNode to 3rd parties? Should we have exposed only the
>> integration point (example parentId)? See example at:
>> http://wiki.glassfish.java.net/Wiki.jsp?page=GFV3PluggabilityOnePager#section-GFV3PluggabilityOnePager-4.1.1AdminConsole
>> 13) Section 4.1.2.5: [Question] Example shows "gf:tx:*". Should the
>> first tupple be "gf" in the example? How does this relate to DTrace?
>> 14) Please clarify support for JVM, JDBC, JPA, jRubby monitoring and
>> CallFlow support.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nazrul Islam - (408) 276-6468 - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>
>