activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console
Date Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:10:32 GMT
I don't want to read that discussion again.. but from what I remember
of what I once read, and after I talked to some guys in person, the
issue was where the component would live.. like the plugin being
outside of AMQ5 code.

I believe that if we consumed hawt-io as a component (just like we
consume Jetty), and have the plugins, checkstyles, apache branding,
activemq5 and Artemis brand on the main repo, it shouldn't be an

hawtio would be a component, the plugin would live on our codebase and
users would experience it as an apache product.

It would be great if we could try at least with artemis, and if
everybody agrees/likes we could do the same on ActiveMQ5 branch.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:51 AM, jgenender <> wrote:
> John D. Ament-2 wrote
>> Just wondering - considering where a number of committers work.  Why not
>> leverage as a new console?
> Oh boy... that was likely not the right thing to say... ;-)  I see Pandora's
> box about to open up... and surprisingly, John, your answer concerns me as
> you are pretty good about the Apache way. ;-)  I mean that as a compliment
> (mostly).
> I suggest you review the very long and heated discussion surrounding
> that occurred surrounding its inclusion in ActiveMQ.
> Long story short, one of the main issues was what you just stated.  A) The
> fact that where "number of committers work" left out others from ActiveMQ's
> perspective for how they can contribute and making it fair.  B) There was
> certainly a branding issue that didn't make a component of ActiveMQ.
> The thread regarding that has a very long discussion surrounding those items
> and its a very big sore spot in this community.  Suggestions ranged from
> templating to allow ActiveMQ to brand it, to actually making it a
> project at Apache.... both of which were non negotiable from the
> side.  So from that perspective... it's not going to work.
> If you are interested in having it become a part of ActiveMQ, I suggest that
> you review the thread and examine the proposed solutions and see if you can
> get your employer consider what was discussed.  I would also attempt to do
> it without rehashing the negative side.
> As a person who works with many, many companies that use ActiveMQ... I see
> the included web console used nearly everywhere.  I would say the web
> console to installation ratio in the wild is about 20:1.  So I just
> wanted to share that perspective.  Therefore, I am very heavily aligned with
> Jim's comments and agree with him on that point.
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at

Clebert Suconic

View raw message