Sanket Sharma wrote:
...
> 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 understand. I think it should be possible to build Derby with JMX
features with JDK 1.4/1.3. To do it, we can ask the *developer*
to download a JMX library in the BUILDING.TXT instructions
(http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/code/trunk/BUILDING.txt), or
make a JMX library available from the svn repository.
Then, at a later point, we could decide if we want to distribute a JMX
library with Derby itself.
In terms of licensing, it seems like it is possible to redistribute mx4j
to end-users. This also probably means that we could put the mx4j jar
files into svn repository, so that developers do not need download them
manually.
Regards
Andreas
