On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Lloyd L Chambers wrote:
> Jerome,
>
> This should be clarified for the community -- neither Kedar nor I
> understand any use case without MBeans! So --
>
> WHAT use case(s) involve no MBeans?
>
We have talked many times about embedded use case where remote
management is undesirable.
> In in my view, accomodating such use cases will degrade the overall
> viability of AMX. And it has pernicious effects, like foregoing
> compile-time checks and subsituting runtime ones.
>
the viability of AMX is not driven by whether your force every single
line of GlassFish code to depend on you to satisfy static compile time
(Which you could still very well do through an annotation processor)..
The viability of AMX has to be driven by a set of features that makes
it useful to 95% of the people so that they will want to include it in
their distributions or leverage it.
Jerome
> Lloyd
>
> On Mar 14, 2008, at 11:03 PM, Jerome Dochez wrote:
>
>>> 2. to make AMXConfigInfo.amxInterface() field be a String instead
>>> of a Class<? extends AMXConfig>.
>> sorry but this was not a suggestion, this needs to be changed and
>> we have talked many times about such use case (no mbean)
>
> ---
> Lloyd L Chambers
> lloyd.chambers_at_sun.com
> Sun Microsystems, Inc
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: admin-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: admin-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>