Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 02:59:02 +0200
From: Dag.Wanvik@Sun.COM (Dag H. Wanvik)
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1387) Add JMX extensions to Derby
In-reply-to: <33164198.1190880950867.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Sender: Dag.Wanvik@Sun.COM
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <x1oxhclf61wp.fsf@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <33164198.1190880950867.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/22.1 (usg-unix-v)

"Bernt M. Johnsen (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org> writes:

>     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1387?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12530654 ] 
>
> Bernt M. Johnsen commented on DERBY-1387:
> -----------------------------------------
>
> On second thought. Making the Derby JMX automatically available in
> the MBean server will make it impossible for the user to make some
> application with an embedded Derby db manageable thorugh JMX without
> also making Derby manageable thorugh JMX. I would think that this
> "all or nothing" granularity could be a problem for some
> applications. So we would need an explicit derby.system.jmx property
> for enabling the management service anyway. Any comments?

>From your argument it makes sense to introduce this property, but
should the default be "off", though? I thought your argument was to
enable it for usability reasons, or did you decide against it for
security reasons?

Dag