Gianugo Rabellino wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > Yes, JMX is imho the way to go, so a general +1. I don't have much > > knowledge of JMX, but I would assistent and help in such an effort > > whereever I can. > > > > The simple question is only, which version we would use as base, I > > would suggest 2.2. > > It really depends on how far we are from 2.2. I don't want to > sound pessimistic, and I must confess that I'm the first one > lagging behind the Fortress migration, but I have an overall > feeling that we are still quite far away,
:), yes this might be true. > and I think that we > could use something ASAP. Sure > > I'm no JMX expert at all, but I understand that basic JMX > support can be easily "piggybacked" on existing code, as long > as you're basically happy with monitoring and small > management tasks: more important needs might require > significant changes to the code base, so if I were to draw a > plan I would say that we _might_ include some JMX code right > now and that we _should_ plan JMX support for 2.2, even if > that requires some refactoring. I have the feeling that a > complex application like Cocoon really could use some > management tools. > Sounds like a good plan! Carsten
