EVALUATION

Straightforward and obvious change.  Implies API change, so cannot be done before Mustang.
###@###.### 2004-04-23

Rather than comparing the canonical names, it might be better to compare the keys in a "smart" order.  In particular, it makes sense to compare the "type" key first since it is conventionally present in all ObjectNames.  Doing so would allow us to group together MBeans of the same type that are in the same domain.  Probably it is enough to leave the key order unspecified but to say that any given implementation will apply a consistent ordering to all keys of all ObjectNames.  The purpose, after all, is simply to sort ObjectNames into an order that is convenient for humans.
###@###.### 2005-2-18 16:16:00 GMT
                                     

PUBLIC COMMENTS

javax.management.ObjectName should implement Comparable<ObjectName>.  The proposed semantics would be that name1.compareTo(name2) would be the same as name1.getCanonicalName().compareTo(name2.getCanonicalName()).
                                     

CONVERTED DATA

BugTraq+ Release Management Values

COMMIT TO FIX:
mustang


                                     

WORK AROUND

Supply an explicit Comparator wherever necessary:

public final class ObjectNameComparator implements Comparator<ObjectName> {
    public int compare(ObjectName o1, ObjectName o2) {
        return o1.getCanonicalName().compareTo(o2.getCanonicalName());
    }
    public boolean equals(Object o) {
        return (o instanceof ObjectNameComparator);
    }
}
                                     

SUGGESTED FIX

public class ObjectName implements Comparable<ObjectName> {
    public int compareTo(ObjectName n) {
        return getCanonicalName().compareTo(n.getCanonicalName());
    }
}

This could be optimized, but it's probably not worth it.
###@###.### 2004-04-23