avalon-phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W." <davew...@optonline.net>
Subject [PATCH] Re: Why is JMX support in builds optional?
Date Thu, 05 Sep 2002 23:35:29 GMT
The attached patch requires MX4J in builds.  It also eliminates the need for
the other patch I posted (which seemed to get less attention than this
topic...).  Again, I hope this is the right format for patches -- please
complain at me if it isn't.

Unresolved issues:
-- The kernal.xml still uses NoopSystemManager as a default SystemManager
-- Maybe place a jndi.properties file for MX4J in the classpath
-- I'll try to think of more.

David Weitzman

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Donald" <peter@apache.org>
To: "Avalon-Phoenix Developers List" <avalon-phoenix-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: Why is JMX support in builds optional?


> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 07:55, David W. wrote:
> > I'm just curious, why JMX optional for builds?  It only adds about 500k
to
> > an already 3meg distribution, and parts of building, configuring, and
> > (un)launching (and as a byproduct, documenting) would be simpler if
support
> > for JMX could just be assumed.
>
> Historical reasons really. We could/should require jmx to build and use it
by
> default. Someone just needs to actually do it ;)
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Peter Donald
> ------------------------------------
> The two secrets to success:
>    1- Don't tell anyone everything.
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:avalon-phoenix-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:avalon-phoenix-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>

Mime
View raw message