On Dec 23, 2005, at 8:43 AM, Giacomo Pati wrote:
Before I'm going to commit the real MBean I have I'd like to discuss
whether we want to have a cocoon.sh/cocoon.bat option to start a jetty
with a JMX-Agent activated.
My oppinion would be: Yes we should
+1. I agree, cocoon.sh is useful and we should try to keep it / make
it as useful as possible, not just show it as "well here is how you
could write a script that would start Cocoon". It's that kind of
approach that newbies find so exasperating about Cocoon. We should
strive for Cocoon to be as useful OOTB as possible! :-)
I use cocoon.sh in a production environment for all my projects. I
have a small wrapper script that calls cocoon.sh and parameterizes it
by setting various shell variables used by cocoon.sh.
If most people find this is a must I'd further want to discuss whether
we should switch to a more recent jetty version (now 4.2.23, I suggest
using 5.1.8) which has better configuablility (we can get rid of the
Loader class) and the way how JMX is configured is mutch clearer to
me.
Also my oppinion on this is: Yes, I'd like to
+1 for (a) a current & better Jetty, (b) enables a simplification (it's
always good when you can get rid of something), and (c) 'clearer' JMX
configuration, whatever you mean by that, but it sounds like a good
thing :-)
