Since you guys are talking about JMX based stuff. Please take a look at the GBean/Kernel stuff in Geronimo. It's very rich, comprehensice and based on JMX.
-- dims --- Thor Heinrichs-Wolpert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It could be we're talking about much the same things. > JMX provides instrumentation capabilities, and standard services, one > of the standard services is the loading/un-load of archives using the > MLet service. > > There is a strong rumour you've already finished the kernel Pier ... if > so share I'm dying to see it. > > If not, then please have a look at the MLet capabilities for loading > and unloading. I think loading and MD5Url using the MLet loader would > be a good thing and since it is already built for us in MX4J as a > standard service ... why recreate it unless you find problems with the > concept as defined by JMX. JMX is a bit more than just an SNMP agent > of sorts. > > Cheers, > Thor HW > > > On 29-Mar-04, at 9:26 AM, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > > > On 29 Mar 2004, at 17:20, Hamilton Verissimo de Oliveira (Engenharia - > > SPO) wrote: > >> De: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >>> Yes, totally. And we already have it working and solved with this new > >>> container. Why would we trash it to move to JMX? what would that buy > >>> us? > >> > >> Would you put an instrumentation layer on it? If yes, then consider > >> JMX. > > > > I believe that we all agreed that the core should be instrumentable by > > JMX. I believe there's some confusion here between "instrumenting" the > > Cocoon kernel with JMX and using JMX _as_ the core kernel of Cocoon. > > > > I still believe that for Cocoon the first solution is the optimal one, > > using a Cocoon-tailored kernel, instrumentable with JMX... > > > > Pier > ===== Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
