Yes that's why I was working on JMX. With JMX we can expose management functions via a standard and if someone want to write a management frontend he can just use them.
Anyway I think ship a command line client with JAMES makes sense . Bye Norman 2010/10/24, Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]>: > 2010/10/24 Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]>: >> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Norman Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sounds good :) I think using JMX calls would be preferable .. >> >> IIRC RemoteManager has issues which prevent the rest of james moving >> forward. though i find RemoteManager useful and had some plans, i >> think removing it from trunk would be the best strategy. >> >> i would prefer an independent management product for james (whether >> using JMX transport or not) to an integrated one. if anyone is >> interested then coding up something based on whatever's useful in >> RemoteManager in a sandbox then that'd work for me much better than >> trying to work within james. > > +1 > > Stefano > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
