activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console
Date Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:46:48 GMT
And how exactly do you plan to achieve this without changes in hawt.io, 
and consequently buy-in from the hawt.io devs? Fork hawt.io?

Hadrian



On 01/21/2014 12:11 PM, Gary Tully wrote:
> hadrian, it is the activemq devs that want to include hawtio, not the
> other way around.
> lets concentrate on what we (activemq devs/pmc) can do to make the web
> experience better.
> The only technical issue with hawtio in 5.9 is the branding. I say we
> just fix that.
>
> On 21 January 2014 17:00, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Agree.
>>
>> In the other thread it was clarified why the hawt.io console in the current
>> form cannot be included in the activemq distro. I would have expected the
>> hawt.io devs to come with a proposal on how they plan to address that if
>> they want #3 to happen. Suggestions were offered, but I saw no reply or
>> feedback. Continuing this conversation without an understanding of what the
>> hawt.io devs intentions are is, imo, not a great use of time.
>>
>> My $0.02,
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/21/2014 11:30 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a huge difference between “needing help” in that area (as you put
>>> it)  and “having someone else do it for us”.
>>>
>>> For #3 to work, IMO two things need to be done:
>>>
>>> 1) Skinning (obvious)
>>>
>>> 2) All the ActiveMQ related code needs to be moved into the ActiveMQ
>>> project.   If someone is using ActiveMQ and wants to contribute changes to
>>> how the console looks or displays items or such, they should be making
>>> contributions to ActiveMQ, not some external community (open source, free,
>>> or otherwise).   The hawt.io “framework” of libraries and such can remain
>>> outside, but the ActiveMQ specific portions needs to be part of this
>>> community.   If it’s going to be the visible frontend of this project, we
>>> need to make sure it drives the developer willing to contribute enhancements
>>> into ActiveMQ.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message