activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dejan Bosanac" <de...@nighttale.net>
Subject Re: WebConsole in embedded mode
Date Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:56:32 GMT
On 6/11/07, James Strachan <james.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/10/07, Dejan Bosanac <dejan@nighttale.net> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've recently integrated web console in one of my projects, some of the
> > impressions are:
> >
> > http://www.nighttale.net/onjava/integrating-activemq-web-console.html
>
> Great article BTW! I added a link to it in the articles page...
> http://activemq.apache.org/articles.html


Great. Thanks :)

> Summarized:
> >
> > * default webconsole-embedded.xml does not do the job (as it is starting
> its
> > own broker). As Mario suggested, default invm configuration or version
> of
> > embbeded configuration that is included in ActiveMQ assembly process
> would
> > do the job.
>
> Yeah; if you wanna switch to in-VM or remote thats fine too. The
> embedded mode is really just for folks who wanna boot up the broker
> with a web app in a single war which is the default if folks wanna
> just run the web console (e.g. in the web-console project running 'mvn
> jetty:run' will boot up activemq and the web console).


Yes, I understand that. I think that I've tried to use invm configuration
provided with the war for this purpose and as I remember it didn't work (but
I have to check it out), so I used the 'embedded' configuration you created
for ActiveMQ itself.

Also, maybe we could ease the configuration if we provide a way to define
configuration type through the web.xml (or dispatcher-servlet.xml). For
example to use <context-param> to specify this. I think it is a better fit
for web applications. Of course, system property would have a priority, so
it would be backward-compatible. What do you think?


> * I didn't want to use the whole war, but to extract the console inside my
>
> > application. I found that most of the JARs are already in my classpath,
> so I
> > excluded them in the extraction process. Also, if it is not done so,
> there
> > are some classloading problems that I've experienced. If in the assembly
>
> > process we create one archive that is prepared for this purpose, more
> people
> > would be using it?
>
> Yeah - I went through a similar process when integrating the web
> console into the default broker script. ( i.e. when you run 'activemq'
> script you get by default an embedded broker running the web console).



I saw that, great work. I think we can create a separate artifact (.zip ??)
of web-console for people that want to use it this way. It will come with
only subset of JARs in the WEB-INF lib folder and proper configuration
files. Then folks who want to embed the console this way would just need to
extract it to their app and configure (no need to filter libs or conf
files). Just an idea, of course :)

> * I think that ActiveMQ could benefit from version 2.2 of the
> maven-assembly
> > plugin, as it supports excluding of resources from the war archive. It
> would
> > make assembly process cleaner (for the purpose of integrating web
> console).
>
> You mean like we do in unix-bin.xml and windows-bin.xml with
> including/exclusing files from the WARs; or in a better way? (I do
> feel the current approach is a bit hacky, though it does seem to
> work).


Yes, just for the excluding files :) I saw the comment in the
unix-bin.xmlregarding this. It definitely works fine this way, but it
would just be a
bit cleaner.


Of course, I'm willing to help if we agree that any changes should be made
:)

Regards,
Dejan

--
> James
> -------
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message