On Friday, Aug 8, 2003, at 13:05 Europe/London, Leo Simons wrote:
Why JMX Is Not A Very Good Kernel ------------------
I'd definitely concur with this. Put it better than I could have done, too :-)
Note that just because JMX isn't a kernel, doesn't mean that some parts of it can't be configured with JMX on top. It just means that not everything has to be JMX.
Building a tighter smaller kernel gives me a gut feeling that it will run faster, though I've yet to convert that into measurable figures :-) But reducing (unnecessary) layers is bound to speed it up...
One fear I have of using JMX as a kernel is that all the intra-kernel messages would be sent using JMX. If JMX isn't used in the kernel, then they can be made more efficient/optimised; but JMX can be put as a layer on top of the features (e.g. EJBs) that need configuring/managing by JMX.
Definitely vote +1 for not using JMX 'just because'
Alex.
