There are several features that are currently under consideration:
There would be a UI that you could use to change the configuration of your Agents.
Here again, there would be a UI that would allow you to easily migrate your Agents from a prior version to a more recent one.
Right now, you can add a new or change a PBD file without restarting your JVM. But any extension that requires touching something the "ext" directory requires a restart. We would remove this limitation.
You would see an estimation of the resource usage of the Agent, which would help you tune its configuration to suit your overhead requirements.
There would be a website listing Agent extensions for custom applications/frameworks (such as Mule ESB, PeopleSoft, Amdocs, Oracle Service Bus, Struts 2, etc..) that you could download and add to your Agents.
When you create your first Agent configuration, you would have a choice between several options (super safe/low overhead for Production, medium instrumentation for more visibility, full instrumentation for dev/troubleshooting).
We need *your* input!
Here is a survey that will allow you to tell us which of these features are the most important for you. You have 100$ to spend, and you get to invest them into the features you really need. You can even spend money on an "other" feature and explain to us what you need.
Java Agent future Survey
(Tip, it usually has more impact to put more money on a few features than to try and spread a little money on each one.)
Feel free to post a question under this thread if you have any questions, happy spending!
Hey, we've had 7 responses already, that's pretty good, but we really need your voice to be heard in order to get more accurate results. The survey is very short and will really not take long!
Thx for helping us out,
We've received 12 responses and are getting some good trends, but we would benefit from a few additional responses to confirm them. If we get 20 responses, I promise to post the results!
It should really not take long: Java Agent future Survey
*bumping back to top
I remember filling this exact survey out over a year ago. This is a good practice. Also, it would help if these survey would somehow be connected/integrated with the CA APM Community's Ideas content
Thx for your feedback. Just to add my thoughts on this, the Ideas on the community site are a great source of requirements, however most of the time they are quite situational and often try to address specific product pain points, which we clearly need to do as much as we can, but they rarely ask us to implement significant new functionalities, which at the end of the day will make a bigger difference for our users.
So these surveys are there to help us prioritize these “new features” that we believe to be important but that customers did not think to create ideas for.
I’ll take an example. Let’s say there’s an Idea for “ActiveMQ” support on the community. And maybe also other ideas to better support ESBS and Messaging Platforms.
What we would typically do is try to abstract these requirements into a broader set, so for example having a productized support for all JMS implementations would answer all these ideas at once. You won’t see an Idea on the community site for a “Better JMS support” on the community site, only its local customer manifestations.
Does this make sense?