I have heard more than one say that JMX is what Avalon is and much more.
As a reference they take JBoss, and say that if JBoss runs ok, what's the problem with JMX?
One thing that I've see users start to dislike about Avalon is the dependency on the Avalon interfaces. JMX instead looks like totally dynamic, with no binding.
As I see it, is there a reason why we need to *impose* our interfaces?
I mean, it could be simple to simply make the lifecycle act as if there was Initializable if it finds an init() method, no?
Then they say that JMX is actually much more than that, because you can attach meta data.
In essence, what does Avalon lack to make JMX folks be compelled to use Avalon instead?
What is missing for Avalon to be able to run JMX components OOTB?
What does JMX lack that Avalon already gives?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
