On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 14:57 -0500, David M. Lloyd wrote:
On 03/25/2010 02:05 PM, Adrian Brock wrote:
> By using the JMX connector in the JDK you loose the ability to do
> remote JMX invocations that are involved in user transactions.
How is this a bad thing? That there's even an expectation that
transactions will "work" over JMX seems crazy to me. It's ok to
discontinue features which don't make sense.
It's a bad thing because you've deleted a feature.
The requirement is not completely off the wall, since it came
up in the JMX 2.0 spec committee. We decided there that we
wouldn't address it, since the mechanism depends upon
the transport, e.g. UserTransaction in JavaEE or "current"
in CORBA, etc. So its really an implementation detail
(value add) of the protocol.
JBoss by Redhat