Hi, > IIRC, core JMX (JSR-3) suffers from the same issue as JavaMail in that > the specification includes a lot of concrete implementation. > There was a > discussion on the MX4J list about trying to separate it out > and produce > an interface version there but it was considered unfeasable. > Geronimo is > using MX4J for its JMX implementation. > > I don't know if that is also true for JSR-160 but we are currently > getting that from MX4J as well.
Yes, also JSR 160 requires a lot of implementation: 1) Factories 2) JMXServiceURL and notification classes (and few other things) 3) All standard classes of the RMI implementation (for interoperability reasons). It is everything implemented already in MX4J, both JSR 3 and JSR 160. Both JSRs will be included in JDK 1.5 (Sun's implementation of course). Simon
