activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Is skinning hawt.io enough to allow it be be packaged in ActiveMQ?
Date Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:10:45 GMT
There are many comments in this thread. Did you get them?
Hawt.io is not a library. Why should it be treated as a library? A 
library would be wicket or angular, or jolokia. Hawt.io is an application.

Hadrian



On 01/27/2014 01:22 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Wow... I expect someone to chime in.
>
> Does this mean everyone agrees that hawtio needs to be treated like
> every other 3rd party library we redistribute?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:44 PM, 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
>
>


Mime
View raw message