> Is this meant to replace our current MX4J based implementation, or enhance it?
To enhance, of course. Why replace a good thing? Vasily -----Original Message----- From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 12:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Contribution of JMX and JMX remote connectors On Mar 22, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Zakharov, Vasily M wrote: > Hi, all! > > I'd like to announce the contribution of JMX implementation and JMX > optional remote connectors implementation on behalf of Intel > Corporation. > > They could be found at: > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3473 (JMX) > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3474 (connectors). > > I think it would be helpful to use some solutions of this contribution > for improving MX4J and creating state-of-the-art JMX implementation > for > Harmony. I don't understand. Is this meant to replace our current MX4J based implementation, or enhance it? > > I welcome you to try the contribution and share your opinions. > > Thanks, > > Vasily Zakharov > Intel ESSD
