geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Blewitt <>
Subject Re: JMX as a kernel (was: Re: geronimo and avalon?)
Date Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:54:50 GMT

On Friday, Aug 8, 2003, at 13:05 Europe/London, Leo Simons wrote:

> Why JMX Is Not A Very Good Kernel
> ------------------

I'd definitely concur with this. Put it better than I could have done, 
too :-)

Note that just because JMX isn't a kernel, doesn't mean that some parts 
of it can't be configured with JMX on top. It just means that not 
everything has to be JMX.

Building a tighter smaller kernel gives me a gut feeling that it will 
run faster, though I've yet to convert that into measurable figures :-) 
But reducing (unnecessary) layers is bound to speed it up...

One fear I have of using JMX as a kernel is that all the intra-kernel 
messages would be sent using JMX. If JMX isn't used in the kernel, then 
they can be made more efficient/optimised; but JMX can be put as a 
layer on top of the features (e.g. EJBs) that need configuring/managing 
by JMX.

Definitely vote +1 for not using JMX 'just because'


View raw message