db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Van Couvering <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Choice of JMX implementations
Date Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:50:39 GMT
I like the idea of detecting the presence of a JMX implementation and 
starting the service if it exists.  We'd still have to indicate exactly 
what JMX implementations and versions we have tested with (and provide 
links to the download page), so that users know what will work.

That said, if we *can* redistribute MX4J and we think it works well, 
redistributing it would be a nice thing to do for our users, so they 
don't have to take an extra step to be able to get JMX functionality for 

The nice thing is for anyone using JDK 1.5 or higher this is a non-issue.

What about J2ME, are there versions of J2ME that we support that don't 
come with JMX, or are we covered?



Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> If the goal is to repackage any of these, I'm not sure that will be
> possible with any of the following, except for Apache Commons
> Modelling, but is that actually an implementation?
> For information on compatibility of other open source licenses with
> the ASL, see: http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
> On 7/13/06, Sanket Sharma <sanketsharma@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just wanted an opinion about JMX implementation to use for Derby. I
>> have listed the better known implementations below with my comments:
>>         1. For Sun JDK/JVM prior to version 1.5 Sun's references 
>> implemenation is
>>             available as a seperate jar download. Applications running 
>> on JVM 1.3
>>             and 1.4 will need to download install this jar.
> We can't repackage this jar, as the terms of Sun's BCL are
> incompatible with the ASL. But perhaps we could detect its presence
> and start the JMX services if an implementation is present.
>>          2. XMOJO Project
> This is GPL licensed. Currently ASF policy is not to redistribute
> GPL-licensed jars.
>>          3. Apache Commons Modeller framework
> Sounds like this would aid your development, but do you still need an
> implementation? At any rate, we could repackage it if its needed at
> runtime.
>>          4. MX4J
> This has a modified BSD license with an advertising clause, and a
> restriction to downstream projects on naming. Not that we'd ever name
> our project MX4J, but it's an extra restriction that isn't in the ASL,
> so we might need to get a determination from legal-discuss on whether
> this is acceptable to redistribute.
> andrew

View raw message