Glenn Nielsen wrote: >>> Before branching and having to maintain patches in two branches, >>> why not try to fix the builds and/or change the implemenation of the >>> additional JMX support so that it can be built optionally. >> >> >> Sorry, but this is not possible, and I will *not* include these changes >> in 4.1.x, at least not for now. > > Why is it not possible to add (optional) JMX support to j-t-c components > so that we don't have to branch?
Because optional JMX is going to be too painfull and limit a lot of what we can do ( or make it much more complex than it needs to be ). I'll remove JMX from util - that can be easily avoided. 3.3 and 4.0 have their own http and ajp connectors. > I did not say anything about 4.1, just that I feel it is preferable to not > have to maintain two j-t-c code bases. I agree - but if the cost is making the code too convoluted and use only a small subset of JMX - I think it's better to branch. Registration can be wrapped ( easily ). Notifications and use of MBeanRegistration are hard to wrap. >From a different perspective - even if j-t-c is branched, it should be possible to use either branch in any tomcat - if you have JMX, you can use HEAD with 3.3 or 4.1. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
