Leo Simons wrote: > > > So the advantage is simply that the stuff is there and working, > > not to great within phoenix though =)
Why not? What is missing? > > plus it > > uses established standards (HTTP for non-Java access and RMI for Java > > access). If at some point in the future MX4J turns out to be too slow or > > otherwise not appropriate, you would not have to change the client and > > the communication protocol, you'd just have to implement a new and > > better server. > > probably wouldn't work that way in real life... And why is that? > > Also, in the future there may be people, who want to > > connect their clients to an Avalon/Phoenix server and they might not > > have the slightest idea of Avalon/Phoenix. It would be cool to be able > > to tell them that it's just XML over HTTP > > ? Just don't follow here. Spell out for me please? Why is it cool that > avalon == XML over HTTP? Everybody knows what XML and HTTP are, but no-one knows what Avalon is. If you'd tell me as a developer I'd have to use a custom protocol with Avalon, I'd turn away. No chance to sell it to my boss. > What you should keep in mind that JMX is very useful as a management > protocol (ie designed with stuff like SNMP in mind), but not so much for > more generic program-to-progam communications (that'd be JMS, RMI, > CORBA, SOAP, ...). It is just so popular because it is easy to also use > it for stuff like that. I'm not saying you don't get that (think you do) > -- just that there's quite a few people that don't get it. If JMX is popular, because it's easy to use, then it is obviously more useful than those other technologies :) What you can do with JMX is basically set and get values - and that's all you need in program-to-program communication. Everything else is just syntactic sugar. Ulrich -- Ulrich Mayring DENIC eG, Systementwicklung -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
