geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jens Schumann <j...@void.fm>
Subject Re: Dynamic MBeans. Was: Kernel Architecture
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:55:31 GMT
On 8/12/03 06:10 PM Berin Loritsch <bloritsch@apache.org> wrote:

> Jens Schumann wrote:
>
>> 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.
> 
> Umm, I don't recall saying anything about jakarta-commons*.  I use code from
> there, and in general it is usually pretty good stuff.

Just an analogy. The only reason I switched from silently reading this ML to
posting a few comments is that I see a certain resistance to certain topics
just because religious reasons or something (and I don't say you did that;),
while other areas are out of discussion. Jakarta-commons* is one of those,
and to be honest, jakarta-commons* is a one way street with no return. And
it is not just me who believes in that;).

>> 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.
> 
> I understand that JMX is a specification.  The only major real damage that
> I see here is one of the golden hammer.  The temptation with any new tool
> is to go hog wild with it.  I am usually much more conservative, and introduce
> the tool where I think it would help.  IOW, I start small.  Since JMX already
> has a place where it lends a big help, I am resistent to endorsing a path
> where
> it is the *only* solution.  As long as we can make it *one* solution out of
> many, I will happily shut my trap.
> 
> Since you mentioned moving back and forth between JMX enabled and JMX
> based is bad, that is yet another red flag that maybe we don't want to
> go down that road.  But that is my conservative side talking.  I'm not
> going to get in the way if you hell bent on going that direction.  I'm
> just trying to find some balance here.

And I am on the other side;). JMX is there a couple of years. And I have to
admit that I love the power of JMX in loosely coupled component based
systems. While following the discussion here I felt some pain reading about
instrumentation only, so please consider taking a look at the agent services
provided through JMX. If they are worth nothing just ignore my posts.

In the end raising the red flag is valid, since switching back to JMX
enabled will be painful to impossible, as it is for switching to a JMX based
solution at some point.

Jens 


Mime
View raw message