The attached patch requires MX4J in builds. It also eliminates the need for the other patch I posted (which seemed to get less attention than this topic...). Again, I hope this is the right format for patches -- please complain at me if it isn't.
Unresolved issues: -- The kernal.xml still uses NoopSystemManager as a default SystemManager -- Maybe place a jndi.properties file for MX4J in the classpath -- I'll try to think of more. David Weitzman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Avalon-Phoenix Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 6:54 PM Subject: Re: Why is JMX support in builds optional? > On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 07:55, David W. wrote: > > I'm just curious, why JMX optional for builds? It only adds about 500k to > > an already 3meg distribution, and parts of building, configuring, and > > (un)launching (and as a byproduct, documenting) would be simpler if support > > for JMX could just be assumed. > > Historical reasons really. We could/should require jmx to build and use it by > default. Someone just needs to actually do it ;) > > -- > Cheers, > > Peter Donald > ------------------------------------ > The two secrets to success: > 1- Don't tell anyone everything. > ------------------------------------ > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
build.diff
Description: Binary data
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
