activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console
Date Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:07:10 GMT

On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:53, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:

> Karaf ships with a console

Yes - its not installed by default - which is equivalent to option 1.

> 
> On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Agreed.  My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console that
>>> comes with ActiveMQ.  A messaging "product" should have its own
>>> console, if it is to be taken seriously by potential "customers”.
>> 
>> I don’t buy in to that at all - having to hit refresh on the web browser
>> in 2014 to see if the message count has increased  just doesn’t cut it -
>> and it hasn’t for a long time.
>> As has been said before, the argument about shipping a console to compete
>> can be used for a container too - but Karaf doesn’t, it makes it optional -
>> and that’s a valid point of view that’s worth replicating.
>> 
>>> Providing an even playing field for consoles shouldn't be ActiveMQ's
>>> primary concern.  ActiveMQ should concern itself with providing a
>>> best-of-breed messaging system, which should include a management
>>> console.
>> 
>> Or point people to a host of alternatives that would enhance the user
>> experience.  What I really don’t understand is that the people who are
>> active committers, and actually fix the security issues as they come are
>> all saying get rid of the console and our views are being ignored.  Its not
>> our core competence, nor should it have to be - we are writing a message
>> broker. If you feel strongly about it you are of course more than welcome
>> to help write a new console that can be incorporated at a later date.
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>>> James,
>>>> 
>>>> 5. Is just business as usual, why should it be part of the poll? Users
>> raise
>>>> an issue, it gets fixed.
>>>> 
>>>> My $0.02,
>>>> Hadrian
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 01/17/2014 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. -1
>>>>> 2. -1
>>>>> 3. -1
>>>>> 4. +1
>>>>> 5. Resurrect the "old" console and bring it up-to-date, fixing any
>>>>> outstanding bugs - +1
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Robert Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com<javascript:;>
>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> Rob Davies
>> ————————
>> Red Hat, Inc
>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>> Twitter: rajdavies
>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>> 
>> 

Rob Davies
————————
Red Hat, Inc
http://hawt.io - #dontcha
Twitter: rajdavies
Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/


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