Re: [Openjmx-users] can't see the jmx forest for the trees

[Mark D. A. <md...@di...>]

Simone Bordet says:
> All implement the JMX specification, v 1.0, and offer some more extra feature.

Does someone have a summary of what each of JDMX, OpenJMX, and JBossMX offer
beyond the core JMX?
Would it be fair to say that the main thing today that OpenJMX offers beyond
the free (beer) jmx reference implementation is the html adaptor?

> > 3. Now suppose I'd like to manage those instrumented beans using SNMP.
> > It appears JDMK does that; I don't know what else does.
> 
> Not OpenJMX (yet) nor JBossMX (afaik).

Are there any near term plans for SNMP?

As it stands today, JMX has limited appeal to me, because it seems to be only
manageable using proprietary commercial management solutions.
Web-management is fine for humans, but if that is all I get, it would be easier
for me to supply that through other means.

If I had some hope that there would be free snmp support for JMX this year,
I'd be more eager.

I think that snmp support would mean a snmp AgentX sub-agent protocol wrapper
for MBeans. Hopefully that would work with or without java code generation, which
may or may not be desirable.

-mda