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 19:53:32 GMT
My understanding from Sanket's design is it uses the module 
architecture, so it's pluggable, and that it isn't even started by 
default, you have to enable it.  No new requirements on Derby unless you 
*want* to use JMX.

I would argue, however, that we should keep open to over time JMX 
becoming the primary configuration and management framework.  Supporting 
both JMX and system properties may become a bit time-consuming over 
time.   Perhaps, for example, when we EOL JDK 1.4 support, so that JMX 
is "just there" and doesn't require a separate runtime jar file.

David

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Sanket Sharma wrote:
> 
>> Just wanted an opinion about JMX implementation to use for Derby. I
>> have listed the better known implementations below with my comments:
> [snip]
>> Comments and opinion will be appriciated.
> 
> Sounds like a pluggable JMX implementation would be best, rather than
> forcing an infrastructure on a derby user.
> 
> I hope that the JMX stuff is optional, and I can continue to run Derby
> without any JMX booting or requiring any JMX libraries.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan.
> 

Mime
View raw message