On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 07:55, David W. wrote: > I'm just curious, why JMX optional for builds? It only adds about 500k to > an already 3meg distribution, and parts of building, configuring, and > (un)launching (and as a byproduct, documenting) would be simpler if support > for JMX could just be assumed.
Historical reasons really. We could/should require jmx to build and use it by default. Someone just needs to actually do it ;) -- Cheers, Peter Donald ------------------------------------ The two secrets to success: 1- Don't tell anyone everything. ------------------------------------ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
