On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:
> > >> As for someone stoping the check for class modification at run time using > >> an admin interface - what's wrong with that ? > > > > I don't see a problem with that, but I've stopped using "reloadable" at > > all for my development -- reload-on-demand (via the manager webapp) is a > > much more effective strategy IMHO. And "reloadable" shouldn't be used on > > a production server anyway. > > I agree. > > Is 'reloadabl' disabled by default ? Yes ... at least in HEAD of 4.1 and 5.0. I'm pretty sure it's always been that way. > Should we deprecate it ? > Or perhaps (in 5.0) convert it to an installable module rather than a core feature? > BTW - another way to do reload-on-demand is using JMX ( the html interface > provided by either jmx-ri or mx4j - or any other jmx adaptor ). It may be > a good idea to make the manager webapp more powerfull - i.e. support generic > ( simple ) get/set operations via JMX. > I agree. We could pretty easily provide JMX-based operations for everything that manager does (so that they're accessible from a JMX-based client), and have the manager webapp itself just be wrappers around those same MBean operations (for easy integration into non-JMX clients that can perform HTTP requests). > > Costin > Craig -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
