db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sanket Sharma" <sanketsha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Choice of JMX implementations
Date Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:15:38 GMT
> I think that the RI of JMX also has HttpAdaptor.

It was released as part of sun.* packages which are not officially
supported by sun. And I think it has been removed from JDK 6, not very
sure though.

> >     My recommendation is to use either XMOJO or MX4J. Both of them are
> > open source and support JDK 1.3 and above, which is what Derby is
> > supported on.
> >
> > Comments and opinion will be appriciated.
> >
> Is it necessary to choose a specific JMX implementation ? Aren't these
> just implementations of the same JCP spec, so the interfaces/classes
> should be compatible ?

They are implementations of the same JCP and it is not really that big
of an issue. The issues arises only when someone is using JDK < 1.5
which does not carry a implementation by default. Since most of
Derby's code is currently being built against JDK 1.3 and 1.4 (which
do not carry such an implementation), it gave me a chance to look at
alternatives and I just thought it will be good to discuss it.
Currently, I'm experimenting with the reference implementation of JDK
6 which forces me to build my code against three different JDK's. It
will be same for JDK1.5 as well. For building with JDK 1.4 and 1.3, I
will need an implementation. Thats when the issue surfaces.
 Asking the user to download the reference implementation from Sun.com
can be considered as an alternative.

> I might recommend using the reference implementation during the
> development of this feature, because then you may avoid being dependent
> on specific add-on features from a specific library. Or is there a
> specific feature you really would like to use, which is not available in
> the RI ?

No feature in particular that I would like to use. I will use only
standard features defined in the corresponding JCP. The only issue in
my opinion was my JMX implementation was adding the requirement for a
third version of JDK.
> XMOJO is distributed under LGPL, could that be a problem ?

Will check with Apache licence and revert back.

> Sincerely
> -- Andreas

View raw message