> Von: Berin Loritsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Antworten an: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Datum: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:39:44 -0400 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: Re: Dynamic MBeans. Was: Kernel Architecture > > Jens Schumann wrote: > > The thing is that there are certain compromises in the all-in-one box that > you have no control over. Usually the manufacturers of these boxes can only > spend money on one part of it, and they skimp on the rest. So it may have > a good tape player, but the CD player sucks (or vice versa).
I agree with you. However I still don't get the point why relying on JMX is a critical factor, and usage of jakarta-commons* is considered harmful. JMX is a specification and it is up to you to implement it. >> In the end it all boils down to whether a system is JMX enabled or JMX >> based. Interestingly most projects I have seen moved to JMX enabled at some >> stage, since too much stuff was maintained in parallel. However the >> transition from one to the other model is something you should avoid (just >> take a look at tomcat 5). > > <shudder/> > > Seriously though, I would much prefer to have JMX enabled than JMX based, > as we can have more fine tuned control where we need it. The JMX dynamic > classloading might be something causing problems instead of solving them. > If that happens, what is your recourse? See above, it is a specification. And I don't say JMX based is the only solution. But I believe most people here on the list talk about the instrumentation level only. Jens
