The Estonian company Trillian Infosüsteemid has released its new product JuMix 1.0, a light weight open source JMX microserver for Java applications. JuMix can be used to run applications consisting of JMX-based service components. It has been designed to provide a simple, standard and uniform execution environment for Java applications. JuMix offers dynamic deployment of applications and business components, application partitioning with classloader hierarchies, easy administration with standard tools (jconsole) and XML based configuration. JuMix has small memory footprint suitable for use in resource-restricted environments. JuMix can be used both for server-side and client-side applications. JuMix distribution includes a quickstart guide and sample customizable components for a TCP/IP (UDP/IP) server (Apache MINA), Corba server (SUN Java), embedded Tomcat and Quartz scheduler. JuMix main features include: - dynamic deployment of applications and components - easy administration and managment with standard tools (jconsole) - applications partitioning with classloader hierarchies - small memory footprint - XML-based configuration JuMix 1.0 is licenced under the Apache License, Version 2.0. The software is free for private and commercial use, for maintenance and support please contact jumix at trillian dot ee. (Note: we call JuMix a "microserver", it is a simple, yet complete execution environment for Java applications that has more features than a microkernel, but less features and standard services than an application server.)

How is that different from JBoss Microkernel? http://www.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JBossMicrokernel (I do not work for JBoss/RH)

It's true that the kernel consept is very similar but we didn't want a kernel but a SERVER. A server should have reliable scripts for starting and stoping your application:

• The JBoss Microcontainer is small like we want but has no skripts.
• The JBoss Application Server has the skripts but it also has a lot more other stuff that a small application won't need.

Additionally we really like the "jconsole" tool that comes with the J2SE 5.0 JDK (if you don't know what "jconsole" is then check it out, you'll love it too). So that applications run with JuMiX get an instant JVM profiler tool and administration interface. JuMiX is in no way meant to replace Tomcat, JBoss or the like but provide a container for small applications. Applications like:

• CORBA server
• TCP/IP server
• other small tools or servers

Can you quantify your "small memory footprint", eg can you run on a J2ME VM such as Foundation Profile 1.0? How does being a "microserver" square with having Tomcat embedded, given that Tomcat certainly does NOT have a small memory footprint? The other features (eg dynamic deployment, partitioned classloading, administration via console etc) could all easily be achieved with an OSGi runtime, and furthermore OSGi will run on VERY resource-limited environments such as CDC and even CLDC. How would you say your product compares with OSGi? What advantages do you have? OSGi has the advantage of being a widely supported industry standard with a JSR to back it up and multiple open source implementations. Regards Neil

I reviewed the J2ME VM Foundation Profile 1.0 API and unfortunately there is no javax.management package witch JuMiX really needs for the "jconsole" administration (one of the main features). But the idea is create and we should look into it. As Tomcat is not a part of JuMiX then your free to consider a diffrent web server (one of those will do nicely) if you have little memory. But you might want to run an embeded Tomcat on JuMiX for two reasons

• You have other components that will run on JuMiX and you want them all together.
• You really like the monitoring and administering feature.

I must admit that the OSGI keyword is sounding more and more but it's a technology not a server. So the comparrison should be between JMX (not JuMiX) and OSGI. And one advantage for JMX is the fact it's build in J2SE 5.0 JDK. And at the moment I'm not sure witch of the two will be more sucessfull. Also I'm not aware of a lightweight OSGI server distribution. All tend to be frameworks and the startup is left to yourself. And for the OSGI administration you need to look for a tool while for JMX there is one with J2SE 5.0 JDK distribution. I hope my answers are satisfactory.