Why don't we require jmx on the client side?
I bet it takes almost no memory and it has a small jar size. If do
require it on the client side, we can reuse all the services we are
building on the server, like a jcache mbean. It would also simply
server to client messages, which will be used for cache invalidations
and jms messages. This is because we can reuse the invoker
architecture. There will still be a problem with socket back channels
to clients on the other side of a firewall, but we would get a ton of
reuse and simplification.
-dain
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: See the NEW Palm
Tungsten T handheld. Power & Color in a compact size!
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0001en
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
- Re: [JBoss-dev] JMX on the client side? Dain Sundstrom
- Re: [JBoss-dev] JMX on the client side? David Jencks
- RE: [JBoss-dev] JMX on the client side? James Higginbotham
- Re: [JBoss-dev] JMX on the client side? Dain Sundstrom
- RE: [JBoss-dev] JMX on the client side? James Higginbotham
- Re: [JBoss-dev] JMX on the client side? Dain Sundstrom
- RE: [JBoss-dev] JMX on the client side? Matt Munz
- Re: [JBoss-dev] JMX on the client side? Michael Bartmann
- RE: [JBoss-dev] JMX on the client side? James Higginbotham
- RE: [JBoss-dev] JMX on the client side? Matt Munz