Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 13:54:50 +0100
Subject: Re: JMX as a kernel (was: Re: geronimo and avalon?)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
From: Alex Blewitt <Alex.Blewitt@ioshq.com>
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <3F339200.5020003@apache.org>
Message-Id: <7F6D540A-C99F-11D7-B192-0003934D3EA4@ioshq.com>


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'

Alex.