Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of james.strachan@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.224 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=oIO6vJisKTOGJutASG+gjQBY/N85nZkqWOzujvZo9o+tATZMuAoGK6w3Nha/4AWKGW5PJP58Y0RzbQ1LuR9LLmK9j4ER8oraZaXA8yy/qDyMnQ7LdzsDCEUZYSwiM4W3U6NzWSHI4Bg7SePQPK02HOHj6f5f1MgKv1wsA3q5h7U=
Message-ID: <ec6e67fd0706110653n33f2aa91k469494c0fbe32264@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:53:02 +0100
From: "James Strachan" <james.strachan@gmail.com>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: WebConsole in embedded mode
In-Reply-To: <ec6e67fd0706110650k52210a33i1333f06a93cba54e@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <d256f9c80706081802m6bd75335r698dea7a78ef49c6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec6e67fd0706110509pbc53aefpc90543b0d48abf9d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <d256f9c80706110646n6e57a70dicbdeb8e56f5ea086@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec6e67fd0706110650k52210a33i1333f06a93cba54e@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/11/07, James Strachan <james.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/07, Mario Siegenthaler <mario.siegenthaler@gmail.com> 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?)

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