Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of hzbarcea@gmail.com designates
 209.85.128.46 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <52D9AC6C.8070908@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:19:24 -0500
From: Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console
References: <05AAA2FB-2982-4AA8-8CE2-4AC94DE2C708@gmail.com>
 <CAH+vQmNmFZuKBLr4s_MdteRbTGpqahXRbq-z6QXOzELkvUuOsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <01D2C10F-0EC3-424F-A14E-241259EBFAE1@gmail.com>
 <2A1BF6B7-B3B0-4FFE-8CF0-8550A223C953@apache.org>
 <92802FEA-9404-4BD1-AAD7-FFE8461674B0@gmail.com>
 <CALznzY5pyX+SEB1m4QswJ3M7gwh6A1zdqdtHu4hBvnE27+sPXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52D95A07.4090904@gmail.com>
 <CALznzY7XkkWb5JvXxe43Q6n3yYF1Tu2uCoXufDe7AZ1sLNqxGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5CC66F14-E587-43BE-8E81-FEF6A0A2FB89@gmail.com>
 <CALznzY49rmDgS1avQawy=uyMi=vyUJSmC7S0VyT4REH0Q1Q4TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4AFB3EA3-8AFE-430E-914D-5D4D1BC8AE76@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AFB3EA3-8AFE-430E-914D-5D4D1BC8AE76@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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:;>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Rob Davies
>>> ��������
>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>
>>>
>
> Rob Davies
> ��������
> Red Hat, Inc
> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
> Twitter: rajdavies
> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>
>