activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Is skinning hawt.io enough to allow it be be packaged in ActiveMQ?
Date Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:25:30 GMT
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

Mime
View raw message