cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Lundquist ...@wrinkledog.com>
Subject Re: More on JMX integration
Date Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:48:46 GMT

On Dec 23, 2005, at 8:43 AM, Giacomo Pati wrote:

> Before I'm going to commit the real MBean I have I'd like to discuss 
> whether we want to have a cocoon.sh/cocoon.bat option to start a jetty 
> with a JMX-Agent activated.
>
> My oppinion would be: Yes we should

+1.  I agree, cocoon.sh is useful and we should try to keep it / make 
it as useful as possible, not just show it as "well here is how you 
could write a script that would start Cocoon".  It's that kind of 
approach that newbies find so exasperating about Cocoon.  We should 
strive for Cocoon to be as useful OOTB as possible! :-)

I use cocoon.sh in a production environment for all my projects.  I 
have a small wrapper script that calls cocoon.sh and parameterizes it 
by setting various shell variables used by cocoon.sh.

> If most people find this is a must I'd further want to discuss whether 
> we should switch to a more recent jetty version (now 4.2.23, I suggest 
> using 5.1.8) which has better configuablility (we can get rid of the 
> Loader class) and the way how JMX is configured is mutch clearer to 
> me.
>
> Also my oppinion on this is: Yes, I'd like to

+1 for (a) a current & better Jetty, (b) enables a simplification (it's 
always good when you can get rid of something), and (c) 'clearer' JMX 
configuration, whatever you mean by that, but it sounds like a good 
thing :-)


Mime
View raw message