activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console
Date Fri, 07 Oct 2016 21:53:24 GMT
All comments on pull requests sent to https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis are echoed
on the mailing list.  A quick look at the Hadoop and Kafka GitHub repos shows that they also
discuss pull requests directly.  I'm not sure if those are echoed on their mailing lists or
not, though.


Justin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Gomes" <jgomes@apache.org>
To: "ActiveMQ Dev" <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2016 4:40:58 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

I was under the impression that all Apache development discussions occur on
the email list. This is for legal and policy reasons. Please correct me if
I'm wrong.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016, 9:43 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think this is pretty straightforward:
>
> i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both
> Artemis and ActiveMQ
>
> ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some metrics...
>
>
> iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the code.
>
>
> The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request..
> someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical**
> discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then
> collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else.
>
>
>
> I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a
> request I am making here, probably the third time... lets CTRL-Alt-Del
> and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see everybody
> with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks
> like an Apache project, pretty and neat.
>
>
> Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from there.
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is it
> > intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network of
> brokers?
> > Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it rely on
> JMX
> > or something else?
> >
> > Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something that's
> available
> > or some other solution.
> >
> > The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again for
> > something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go
> anywhere.
> >
> > My $0.02,
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
> > On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 on improving/adding a console.  Providing a console out of the box
> is a
> >> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel Artemis
> >> would
> >> greatly benefit from.  Whether it's HawtIO or something else we should
> >> make
> >> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic
> >> <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> @Hiram
> >>>>
> >>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top right
> >>>
> >>> corner).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following:
> >>>
> >>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects. Learn more
> >>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  No other implications from what I see.
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>

Mime
View raw message