-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:50:28 +0100
From: Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: JMX integration
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
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.
excactly, and as Daniel said once, we are great at blocking things even
before somebody started to write a single line of code.
I do have lots of "single lines of code" for JMX support ;-). But as
this is core stuff I'd like to get feedback on how it could ev. be made
less invasive.
Big +1 from my side for JMX support!
- --
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDq9WeLNdJvZjjVZARApgEAKDJnNpOHkphRnD8aJpktzipZ44rDACfXHFn
N4N0dGs8tq7mAjhTkHVdO7g=
=E5K/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
