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: Is skinning hawt.io enough to allow it be be packaged in ActiveMQ?
Date Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:05:14 GMT
The skinning is required because the hawtio web app has some hawtio branding.
So hawtio has a 'face' which we 'mask' to make it like the existing web-console.

But it is not like an imposter, the representation is still the
ActiveMQ jmx mbeans. JMX is the api.

Yes, it is an app, just like the web-console is an app (a war, web
app) - we want hawtio as a replacement for the web-console.

In other respects it is like any other 3rd party dependency.

Why do we have 3rd party dependencies?
Because not all the smart people or resources live at apache.
We want innovation of our web front end and have more pressing needs. ie:
If we don't continue to do messaging well, the need for a web front
end will be moot.
However, for sure, a good web front end helps our cause with users so
if we can leverage a good one, imho great.

There is also the non proliferation of web consoles angle from a
devops perspective.
I think it makes good sense to align with a polly- console. Something
that is extensible and mashable.

In any event, like any 3rd party bit, if it stops serving a purpose we
find a better alternative, we never give up control.





On 27 January 2014 20:10, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>



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

Mime
View raw message