activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console
Date Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:04:02 GMT

On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:16 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:

> inline
> 
> On 21 January 2014 17:36, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> The goals of the Apache communities needs to be to make sure developers are driven
into the Apache communities, not another community.
> Any goal that hopes to drive developers is a non starter. Developers
> choose, they are not driven.

That’s completely BS.     If I download “activemq-###.tar.gz” from ActiveMQ’s website
and I run the startup scripts and such that are documented in that bundle and I find a problem
that directly pertains to ActiveMQ, I COMPLETELY expect to be able to go to ActiveMQ’s JIRA
and log an issue.  I also completely expect to be able to do a “git clone” of ActiveMQ’s
repo, diagnose the problem, and submit a patch back to ActiveMQ.

If I’m in the *ActiveMQ* console provided/endorsed by the ActiveMQ community and I see that
my message is displaying wrong or the data isn’t displaying correctly or the column sizes
aren’t taking things into consideration properly or similar, then I, as a developer, completely
expect that I can contribute patches to ActiveMQ to fix that.   Again, the download needs
to drive developers to ActiveMQ, not an external community.   Also, the documentation around
how to use what is provided by ActiveMQ needs to be on the ActiveMQ web site.  Any errors
in that documentation should be handled by the ActiveMQ community.   Patches for the documentation
should go through ActiveMQ’s process.   


Dan


> I am suggesting we make a sensible choice
> that helps our community by giving it a better web ui. hawtio wants to
> have the best activemq web console, we want to ship the best activemq
> console. The stars are aligned. If the alignment falters we address
> that.
> 
>> 
>>> We don't have to own everything that makes activemq better and that
>>> makes our users experience better, we just have to ensure that it is
>>> better.
>> 
>> Making the user experience better is certainly an important aspect of the Apache
communities, but the primary focus should be on making sure the developer community is healthy
and we aren’t driving potential developers elsewhere.   That NEEDS to be the most important
thing at this point, especially with the current active makeup of this community.
>> 
>> In particular, since Apache is a 503b charitable non-profit foundation, we cannot
be used to promote other communities, particularly those “owned” by a for-profit entity.
 (open source or otherwise, that’s somewhat irrelevant)
>> 
>> Anyway, as far as *I’m* concerned (but I’m not a member of this PMC, just an
interested party), if the hawt.io community is unwilling or unable to support the ActiveMQ
community to allow ActiveMQ to maintain control over it’s user experience, then there is
no-point engaging with them.  It is a waste of time.
>> 
>> That said, if hawt.io community want to create a full distribution of ActiveMQ +
hawt.io to make life easier for users, they certainly are welcome to do so as long as it’s
not branded ActiveMQ.  (and again, not something to be promoted here)
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>>> If the hawt.io  community is unwilling (or unable) to do the second part, then,
IMO, #3 is a non-starter.  If they ARE willing to do that, then great.   Lets start figuring
out how to get that done.   But that’s something that would  need to be discussed on their
side first.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> There are a lot of 0s and +1s for option [3] and two -1s
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let me make a case for it to try and get consensus around it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I want to 'replace' the existing web console with something better.
>>>>> For configuration activemq did not build a dependency injection
>>>>> framework, we shipped spring.
>>>>> Learning from that, it does not make sense to me that we build and
>>>>> maintain a html5 web console.
>>>>> 
>>>>> An admin/management web front end based over our extensive JMX api
>>>>> sounds perfect but it needs
>>>>> a community to evolve and improve it. We (activemq committers) have
>>>>> proven that we need help in that area.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anyone what to change their vote or further expand on the technical
>>>>> reasons we should not be branding hatwio?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 January 2014 13:33, Robert Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because
opinion has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards consensus.
This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it to binding votes only
?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy
to deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
>>>>>> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have
a second distribution with the original console
>>>>>> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
>>>>>> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Here’s my vote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1]. +1
>>>>>> [2]  0
>>>>>> [3] 0
>>>>>> [4] -1
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> http://redhat.com
>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>> 
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://redhat.com
> http://blog.garytully.com

-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com


Mime
View raw message