Re: [VOTE] Making JMX required in tomcat5

[Craig R. McClanahan]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:

> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:22:18 -0800
> From: Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [VOTE] Making JMX required in tomcat5
>
> The subject should be clear. The benefit is that we'll be able
> to build more JMX awareness in the code without doing tricks -
> each component will know about its ObjectName and will be
> able to return ObjectName[].
>
> I'm not proposing MBeans all over tomcat - modeler works very
> well in transforming our components into model mbeans.
>
> We already have 3 +1 votes ( costin, Remy and Jean Francois ).
>

Add a +1 from me as well.

> The only possible problem is the classical licensing issue
> ( we must use mx4j - but I don't know if they passed the TCK
> or if they will or if the TCK is available yet, etc ).
>

Has anyone asked the MX4J developers about this?  That would seem to be
the next course of action.

> Costin
>

Craig


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [VOTE] Making JMX required in tomcat5

[Glenn Nielsen]

+1

Costin Manolache wrote:

The subject should be clear. The benefit is that we'll be able 
to build more JMX awareness in the code without doing tricks - 
each component will know about its ObjectName and will be 
able to return ObjectName[].

I'm not proposing MBeans all over tomcat - modeler works very
well in transforming our components into model mbeans. 

We already have 3 +1 votes ( costin, Remy and Jean Francois ).

The only possible problem is the classical licensing issue
( we must use mx4j - but I don't know if they passed the TCK
or if they will or if the TCK is available yet, etc ).  

Costin



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [VOTE] Making JMX required in tomcat5

[Amy Roh]

+1

Amy

Costin Manolache wrote:

> The subject should be clear. The benefit is that we'll be able
> to build more JMX awareness in the code without doing tricks -
> each component will know about its ObjectName and will be
> able to return ObjectName[].
>
> I'm not proposing MBeans all over tomcat - modeler works very
> well in transforming our components into model mbeans.
>
> We already have 3 +1 votes ( costin, Remy and Jean Francois ).
>
> The only possible problem is the classical licensing issue
> ( we must use mx4j - but I don't know if they passed the TCK
> or if they will or if the TCK is available yet, etc ).
>
> Costin
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

[VOTE] Making JMX required in tomcat5

[Costin Manolache]

The subject should be clear. The benefit is that we'll be able 
to build more JMX awareness in the code without doing tricks - 
each component will know about its ObjectName and will be 
able to return ObjectName[].

I'm not proposing MBeans all over tomcat - modeler works very
well in transforming our components into model mbeans. 

We already have 3 +1 votes ( costin, Remy and Jean Francois ).

The only possible problem is the classical licensing issue
( we must use mx4j - but I don't know if they passed the TCK
or if they will or if the TCK is available yet, etc ).  

Costin



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: