Attaching to a JVM image that does not include java.instrument

[Rafael Winterhalter]

Yes, this is an implication and what I am concerned about.

Am 19.05.2017 17:42 schrieb "Christoph Engelbert" <chris at hazelcast.com>:

Hey,

Just a clarification question, does that mean no agent like dynatrace,
appdynamics or others would work anymore with a normal jlinked image, when
`java.instrument` is specifically added as a dependency?

In this case I would agree with Rafael and Michael. It will come as a
surprise to a lot of users / customers which use those APM / monitoring
solutions that attach agents into any Java process found.

Chris

> On 19. May 2017, at 17:07, Michael Rasmussen <michael.rasmussen@
zeroturnaround.com> wrote:
>
> On 19 May 2017 at 11:22, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com> wrote:
>> One thing that jlink
>> could do is emit a warning that the resulting run-time image doesn't have
>> the management and instrumentation features, might that be the right
>> balance.
>
> As a users of those kind of agents, and as an agent vendor myself
> (though not one I expect to be used often with jlink'ed images - but
> how app servers in the future are distributed remains to be seen) I
> get where Rafael is coming from. I also agree it will come to a
> surprise to many, that if suddenly the distributed image from a
> vendor, now created by jlink, no longer included the capability of
> attaching agents!
>
> Having serviceability/agent support included by default makes sense to
> me, but I also get the reverse argument, that you should be able to
> create a minimalvm/java.base image, if so desired.
>
> I most definitely think, that jlink should at least emit a warning, if
> the image it's generating does not include those features, and also
> have the warning include information how to add these features.
> A dedicated option for jlink to explicitly enable/disable
> serviceability/agent modules could be nice for that.
>
> /Michael