activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console
Date Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:43:31 GMT
I said console in my statement, not web console.  You need a way to manage
stuff.

On Friday, January 17, 2014, Christian Posta <christian.posta@gmail.com>
wrote:

> well, karaf does ship with a console, the command-line shell.
>
> but i think we're talking about the web console.
>
> in 2.3.3, i don't see a webconsole shipped in the distro:
>
> http://pastebin.com/zepcUHMX
>
> in 3.0.0 i don't either:
>
> http://pastebin.com/cfV3yG0Z
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Rob, that's not quite correct. Karaf *ships with a console*, ActiveMQ
> also
> > ships with a console. The issue we are discussing now is the distro
> content,
> > right?
> >
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 01/17/2014 05:07 PM, Robert Davies wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:53, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Karaf ships with a console
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes - its not installed by default - which is equivalent to option 1.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman
> >>>> <james@carmanconsulting.com<javascript:;>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Agreed.  My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console
that
> >>>>> comes with ActiveMQ.  A messaging "product" should have its own
> >>>>> console, if it is to be taken seriously by potential "customers”.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don’t buy in to that at all - having to hit refresh on the web
> browser
> >>>> in 2014 to see if the message count has increased  just doesn’t cut
> it -
> >>>> and it hasn’t for a long time.
> >>>> As has been said before, the argument about shipping a console to
> >>>> compete
> >>>> can be used for a container too - but Karaf doesn’t, it makes it
> >>>> optional -
> >>>> and that’s a valid point of view that’s worth replicating.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Providing an even playing field for consoles shouldn't be ActiveMQ's
> >>>>> primary concern.  ActiveMQ should concern itself with providing
a
> >>>>> best-of-breed messaging system, which should include a management
> >>>>> console.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Or point people to a host of alternatives that would enhance the user
> >>>> experience.  What I really don’t understand is that the people who
are
> >>>> active committers, and actually fix the security issues as they come
> are
> >>>> all saying get rid of the console and our views are being ignored.
>  Its
> >>>> not
> >>>> our core competence, nor should it have to be - we are writing a
> message
> >>>> broker. If you feel strongly about it you are of course more than
> >>>> welcome
> >>>> to help write a new console that can be incorporated at a later date.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea
> >>>>> <hzbarcea@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> James,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5. Is just business as usual, why should it be part of the poll?
> Users
> >>>>
> >>>> raise
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> an issue, it gets fixed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My $0.02,
> >>>>>> Hadrian
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 01/17/2014 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. -1
> >>>>>>> 2. -1
> >>>>>>> 3. -1
> >>>>>>> 4. +1
> >>>>>>> 5. Resurrect the "old" console and bring it up-to-date,
fixing any
> >>>>>>> outstanding bugs - +1
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Robert Davies
> >>>>>>> <rajdavies@gmail.com<javascript:;>
> --
> Christian Posta
> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
> twitter: @christianposta
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message