1 Reply Latest reply on Apr 24, 2003 3:58 PM by Adrian Brock


    postit Newbie


      It might be an answered question to a lot of people.
      But, why do we need a parallel implementation versus using MX4J instead?


        • 1. Re: JBossMX
          Adrian Brock Master

          JBossMX was started before MX4J

          If you read the jmx forum back at the start
          of 2002 you will see Simone Bordet (a developer
          on MX4J) asking questions.

          He later copied some ideas from jbossmx into

          JBossMX is a much faster implementation of
          JMX compared to the RI
          (this is important for JBoss because it
          relies on the JMX as the bus to decouple services).
          See the performance tests in the jmx forum.

          There are also implementation details in JBossMX
          that add extra behaviour to the MBeans such
          as being able to use a context classloader
          pointing at your deployment so you can
          contextually load resources and classes.