activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <>
Subject Re: WebConsole in embedded mode
Date Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:53:02 GMT
On 6/11/07, James Strachan <> wrote:
> On 6/11/07, Mario Siegenthaler <> wrote:
> > > The inVM only works if someone has already started a broker and its
> > > started before the inVM tries to find it.
> > > Or to say that another way; I tried the inVM and couldn't get it to
> > > work; so took the easy route and created the embedded config file
> > > which works as it used to :)
> >
> > I'll try to add some code that waits until the broker is completely
> > started. There might be an issue if the 'startup-script' tries to
> > start the jetty/webconsole before it's completely started the broker.
> > I never run into that till now, but it might be environment/multi-core
> > specific.
> >
> > What'd you guys think if we'd let maven build multiple webconsole-wars
> > depending on the usage scenario:
> > * JNDI in a Webcontainer: jndi-mode and not including the ActiveMQ and JMS jars
> > * Property-based configuration in a Webcontainer: system-property-mode
> > and including all jars
> > * InVM Mode: For startup within the broker or the way Dejan used it.
> > * Embedded Mode: Starts an own broker, contains all jars.
> >
> > The 'user' then could chose the war-variant that fits it usage
> > scenario and wouldn't have to mess around with jars in the
> > WEB-INF/lib..
> > I think this would be easy to do with playing with Maven-Assemblies a bit.
> Sounds good to me; though each war is pretty huge; it could make our
> release massive; so am tempted to leave most of the wars out as
> deployed binaries and let folks just make 'em on demand from source or
> something?

I guess if we can get the JMX stuff working reliably for most folks;
we could just have a single remote WAR folks can deploy; they then
just configure the remote JMX URI (which defaults to the local one)?

>From 5.x onwards will have the web console deployed with the broker
for most folks running a standalone broker; so the need for other
options as binaries is a tad reduced maybe? (i.e. am wondering out of
all the permunations, maybe its just the remote one we need to ship as
a binary WAR?)


View raw message