I think that the RI of JMX also has HttpAdaptor.
It was released as part of sun.* packages which are not officially supported by sun. And I think it has been removed from JDK 6, not very sure though.
> My recommendation is to use either XMOJO or MX4J. Both of them are > open source and support JDK 1.3 and above, which is what Derby is > supported on. > > Comments and opinion will be appriciated. > Is it necessary to choose a specific JMX implementation ? Aren't these just implementations of the same JCP spec, so the interfaces/classes should be compatible ?
They are implementations of the same JCP and it is not really that big of an issue. The issues arises only when someone is using JDK < 1.5 which does not carry a implementation by default. Since most of Derby's code is currently being built against JDK 1.3 and 1.4 (which do not carry such an implementation), it gave me a chance to look at alternatives and I just thought it will be good to discuss it. Currently, I'm experimenting with the reference implementation of JDK 6 which forces me to build my code against three different JDK's. It will be same for JDK1.5 as well. For building with JDK 1.4 and 1.3, I will need an implementation. Thats when the issue surfaces. Asking the user to download the reference implementation from Sun.com can be considered as an alternative.
I might recommend using the reference implementation during the development of this feature, because then you may avoid being dependent on specific add-on features from a specific library. Or is there a specific feature you really would like to use, which is not available in the RI ?
No feature in particular that I would like to use. I will use only standard features defined in the corresponding JCP. The only issue in my opinion was my JMX implementation was adding the requirement for a third version of JDK.
XMOJO is distributed under LGPL, could that be a problem ?
Will check with Apache licence and revert back. Regards, Sanket
Sincerely -- Andreas
