geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jens Schumann <>
Subject Re: Dynamic MBeans. Was: Kernel Architecture
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:01:24 GMT
> Von: Berin Loritsch <>
> Antworten an:
> Datum: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:39:44 -0400
> An:
> Betreff: Re: Dynamic MBeans. Was: Kernel Architecture
> Jens Schumann wrote:
> The thing is that there are certain compromises in the all-in-one box that
> you have no control over.  Usually the manufacturers of these boxes can only
> spend money on one part of it, and they skimp on the rest.  So it may have
> a good tape player, but the CD player sucks (or vice versa).

I agree with you. However I still don't get the point why relying on JMX is
a critical factor, and usage of jakarta-commons* is considered harmful. JMX
is a specification and it is up to you to implement it.

>> In the end it all boils down to whether a system is JMX enabled or JMX
>> based. Interestingly most projects I have seen moved to JMX enabled at some
>> stage, since too much stuff was maintained in parallel. However the
>> transition from one to the other model is something you should avoid (just
>> take a look at tomcat 5).
> <shudder/>
> Seriously though, I would much prefer to have JMX enabled than JMX based,
> as we can have more fine tuned control where we need it.  The JMX dynamic
> classloading might be something causing problems instead of solving them.
> If that happens, what is your recourse?

See above, it is a specification. And I don't say JMX based is the only
solution. But I believe most people here on the list talk about the
instrumentation level only.


View raw message