activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console
Date Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:07:11 GMT
inline

On 21 January 2014 16:30, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
>
> There is a huge difference between “needing help” in that area (as you put it)  and
“having someone else do it for us”.
>
This is my point. A new project has already done it and it is great
(being a great web ui is their whole reason for being).
We no longer need help we just need to embrace it.

> For #3 to work, IMO two things need to be done:
>
> 1) Skinning (obvious)
yes.

>
> 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.
>
This is putting the cart before the horse!
If we need some changes and if we can't make contributions to hawtio
(patches, issues etc) we can deal with that by building our own plugin
or throwing it out or whatever. But why do that now?

We don't have to own everything that makes activemq better and that
makes our users experience better, we just have to ensure that it is
better.

> 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
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>



-- 
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com

Mime
View raw message