I certainly believe it deserves a spot in trunk...this is an enhancement to what we don't have before. That's progress...and its pretty darn cool too ;-)
I definitely don't want my ideas to hold up its movement...just food for thought for down the road. Jeff Viet Nguyen wrote: >> Whats your thought on an adapter interface that provides for full JSR-77 >> compatibility, thus requiring EJB, or a switch that allows for pure JMX >> remoting? This would allow for compliance or be able to leverage the >> management without EJB if so desired. >> >> Thoughts? > > There are goods and bads to both sides to this. If we strictly follow > JSR 77, which means we will use MEJB and are forced to have OpenEJB as > a pre-req, we won't have to worry if our architecture is good or not > (I hope this is right), because we're following a standard for > monitoring and management. On the flip side, if we use JMX to get a > hold of the statistics, we will be able to monitor any type of server. > Doesn't necessarily have to be a Geronimo server either, as long as we > can connect to it via JMX, which I think is a huge plus. > > With that said, I think if we decide to take the alternative JMX path, > it can be changed later (even though this was originally how we > implemented it). I think the important thing now, is to determine > whether or not the monitoring plugin merits a place in trunk.
