activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Is skinning hawt.io enough to allow it be be packaged in ActiveMQ?
Date Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:25:06 GMT
+1

Don't see reason why this is not enough to solve the current issues that 
have been raised.

On 01/27/2014 06:44 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote:
> +1 from me as well.
>
> Regards
> --
> Dejan Bosanac
> ----------------------
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> dbosanac@redhat.com
> Twitter: @dejanb
> Blog: http://sensatic.net
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ibsen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Yes this is also what Chris Mattmann voted +1 as on this discussion
>> [1] would be a solution.
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Remove-the-old-ActiveMQ-Console-td4675925.html#a4676010
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Exactly, I don't see any good reason for treating it differently.
>>> I think skinning is enough.
>>>
>>> On 22 January 2014 22:44, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>>> Starting up a new thread to avoid hijacking the original POLL thread.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> Without the hawt.io community donating the relevant ActiveMQ portions
>> to the
>>>>> ASF we will not be able to get a consensus around proposal #3. Thus,
>> that
>>>>> needs to be taken off the table.
>>>> I think that's a faulty assumption that needs to get discussed and
>> addressed.
>>>> Any hawtio UI that we package in the ActiveMQ will be reviewed by the
>>>> PMC.  Like any 3rd party library that we ship, it has to have an
>>>> approved license and it's functionality has to be tested and verified
>>>> by the ActiveMQ project.  If we the PMC does not like some detail of
>>>> hawtio we just need to open issues to address them and once it's to
>>>> the PMC's liking we can then package it.  This is no different from
>>>> any other 3rd party lib we use so why are we treating it differently?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://redhat.com
>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claus Ibsen
>> -----------------
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>> Email: cibsen@redhat.com
>> Twitter: davsclaus
>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>> Make your Camel applications look hawt, try: http://hawt.io
>>


-- 
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
tim.bish@redhat.com | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/


Mime
View raw message