Since you guys are talking about JMX based stuff. Please take a look at the GBean/Kernel stuff
in
Geronimo. It's very rich, comprehensice and based on JMX.
-- dims
--- Thor Heinrichs-Wolpert <thor@lunartek.com> wrote:
> It could be we're talking about much the same things.
> JMX provides instrumentation capabilities, and standard services, one
> of the standard services is the loading/un-load of archives using the
> MLet service.
>
> There is a strong rumour you've already finished the kernel Pier ... if
> so share I'm dying to see it.
>
> If not, then please have a look at the MLet capabilities for loading
> and unloading. I think loading and MD5Url using the MLet loader would
> be a good thing and since it is already built for us in MX4J as a
> standard service ... why recreate it unless you find problems with the
> concept as defined by JMX. JMX is a bit more than just an SNMP agent
> of sorts.
>
> Cheers,
> Thor HW
>
>
> On 29-Mar-04, at 9:26 AM, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
> > On 29 Mar 2004, at 17:20, Hamilton Verissimo de Oliveira (Engenharia -
> > SPO) wrote:
> >> De: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:stefano@apache.org]
> >>
> >>> Yes, totally. And we already have it working and solved with this new
> >>> container. Why would we trash it to move to JMX? what would that buy
> >>> us?
> >>
> >> Would you put an instrumentation layer on it? If yes, then consider
> >> JMX.
> >
> > I believe that we all agreed that the core should be instrumentable by
> > JMX. I believe there's some confusion here between "instrumenting" the
> > Cocoon kernel with JMX and using JMX _as_ the core kernel of Cocoon.
> >
> > I still believe that for Cocoon the first solution is the optimal one,
> > using a Cocoon-tailored kernel, instrumentable with JMX...
> >
> > Pier
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
|