We could - but since JMX is in JDK anyway, I don't think it's that important to wrap it or not have a code dependency. Wrapping won't make it lighter at runtime :-)
I should just clean up the few places where jmx is abused ( i.e. used as an introspection equivalent in normal code paths ). It's use should be limitted to 'management' - i.e. configure and get runtime info. Costin On 6/26/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Author: costin > Date: Tue Jun 20 14:32:40 2006 > New Revision: 415813 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=415813&view=rev > Log: > Graduated What is the plan next ? Removing the straight dependency on JMX would be a good idea. I suppose there's going to be a need for an object type to abstract ObjectName. Rémy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
