RE: Going for BETA

Simone, sorry for the delayed response. I know what the problem is with 
the RequiredModelMBean failure - I'm arguing with Eamonn and Heather about 
what the actual behavior should be. I"ll look into the ObjectName failures 
as well.

... WkH




"Bordet, Simone" <[email protected]> 
Sent by: [email protected]
10/31/2003 05:29 AM

To
"Brian Scully" <[email protected]>, "MX4J-Dev (E-mail)" 
<[email protected]>
cc

Subject
RE: [Mx4j-devel] Going for BETA






Hi,

> > Quoting "Bordet, Simone" <[email protected]>:
> > > I propose a feature freeze of MX4J in order to
> > focus on making the BETA1
> > > release by fixing bugs and the tests cases that
> > fails.
>
> Is there a plan for the optional JMX remote classes to
> be supported in MX4J?  There are quite a few (~40)
> tests that fail(error) every time in the optional test
> cases.  Were these in the test cases that you were
> considering?

No, if the optional fails it's not important.
Implementation of the optional part of JSR 160 is a big task, and for
now I have no time.
I also think for beta we're okay, we can eventually do a 2.1 with the
optional part in.

Maybe should be good to disable the tests if jmxremote_optional.jar is
not present.

Simon


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
help you create better code?   SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
_______________________________________________
Mx4j-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mx4j-devel