Giacomo Pati wrote: >>>>So, big +1 for adding JMX support to 2.2 :) >>> >>>So long as the new dependency isn't one for the core, but can be >>>contained in a block. > > > No, this is why I'm seeking for suggestions. JMX support has to be > implemented in the core (CoreComponentManager IIRC) and thus will > introduce new dependencies. > I can't imagine a real good solution that is *not* in the core and I think adding JMX support to the core makes more sense as this enables JMX for everything, even for block management or whatever. >From your description I got the impression that this is an optional dependency, so we need it just for compilation, right? I see absolutely no problem with this. If we block new great things just because they add a new dependency we will never get any further.
Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
