Customization of JMC is something that we wanted to do, but ultimately got cut. We were planning to allow customization on a module basis, but we could have done it on a namespace basis. The downside of namespaces is performance. I believe that Java has a strong correlation between modules and namespaces (sorry if I am wrong here, I have never used Java). .NET doesn’t have this. In order to determine what namespaces are in a module, I believe you need to grock through every type in that module – clearly expensive. Maybe we could have found a way around this. The other problem with namespaces is that clearly you will have lots of types that are in a namespace that is not in your chart. What do you do about those? You could have the setting determined by a characteristic of their module...

Would you like to customize what is considered user code? My opinion as of today is that people who want to customize JMC are the same people who shouldn’t be using JMC. The philosophy of JMC is rooted in the idea that the debugging experience should be simpler, while customization comes from the desire for control. However, I may be jaded by my own experience -- when I first started using JMC I wanted to customize it. People (or at least me) have a tendency to want to use every new cool feature. Even features that they would be better off without. However, I am very open to the possibility that this is wrong, and that customization would be useful, so I would love to get feedback either way.