Yes, this is an implication and what I am concerned about. Am 19.05.2017 17:42 schrieb "Christoph Engelbert" <ch...@hazelcast.com>:
Hey, Just a clarification question, does that mean no agent like dynatrace, appdynamics or others would work anymore with a normal jlinked image, when `java.instrument` is specifically added as a dependency? In this case I would agree with Rafael and Michael. It will come as a surprise to a lot of users / customers which use those APM / monitoring solutions that attach agents into any Java process found. Chris > On 19. May 2017, at 17:07, Michael Rasmussen <michael.rasmussen@ zeroturnaround.com> wrote: > > On 19 May 2017 at 11:22, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote: >> One thing that jlink >> could do is emit a warning that the resulting run-time image doesn't have >> the management and instrumentation features, might that be the right >> balance. > > As a users of those kind of agents, and as an agent vendor myself > (though not one I expect to be used often with jlink'ed images - but > how app servers in the future are distributed remains to be seen) I > get where Rafael is coming from. I also agree it will come to a > surprise to many, that if suddenly the distributed image from a > vendor, now created by jlink, no longer included the capability of > attaching agents! > > Having serviceability/agent support included by default makes sense to > me, but I also get the reverse argument, that you should be able to > create a minimalvm/java.base image, if so desired. > > I most definitely think, that jlink should at least emit a warning, if > the image it's generating does not include those features, and also > have the warning include information how to add these features. > A dedicated option for jlink to explicitly enable/disable > serviceability/agent modules could be nice for that. > > /Michael
