At 08:29 PM 11/25/2004 +0100, you wrote: >Ricardo, > >I actually agree with you. However, no one has stepped up to maintain the >JMX support in log4j. If it's not maintained, then it can't be shipped. >It's not more complicated than that. >
Why not remove it from Log4j proper and move it to a separate module? JMX could be very useful, however I'm guessing it goes unused in at least 90% of the time if not more. This way removal from Log4j proper won't mean no more JMX for Log4j. it will just mean that anyone wanting to use JMX features would download an add-on module and development can move at its own pace. Plus it would remove some bloat. There might even be other cases where we could move some components out to another module and have Log4j proper only consist of truly core logging features, cutting down the jar size significantly. I don't have any other specific modules in mind, just throwing the thought out there.
Jake
>At 08:23 PM 11/25/2004, you wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>> I think dropping jmx would be a mistake. I think it could be the
>> foundation for some interesting features.
>>
>> Perhaps a future module to chainsaw that would allow it to graphically
>> configure a remote log4j ? These type of things using jmx make sense.
>>
>>thanks
>>Ricardo
>
>--
>Ceki G�lc�
>
> The complete log4j manual: http://qos.ch/eclm
> Professional log4j support: http://qos.ch/log4jSupport
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
