activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console
Date Tue, 04 Oct 2016 15:46:31 GMT
I'd like to point out that HawtIO 2.0 is different from 1.x.  Is been
modularized using bower components and any project can build a customized
HawtIO based console very easily with user specified plugins and branding.
Also please note, HawtIO is not a Red Hat product, it's an open source
project which Red Hat heavily contributes to.

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
wrote:

> @Daniel +1... I share the same view... Lets just move forward.. and
> forget the past thread.
>
> @Christopher Shannon.. in regard to your other email.. +1
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 30, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> so... IMO, the Web console needs to look an apache product..
> >> regardless of what components you use. if someone can provide a clean
> >> and nice implementation.. using whatever frameworks or components that
> >> are apache (or compatible) license, I think that's a reasonable
> >> consideration.
> >
> > It’s a bit more than that….    It cannot be used to promote other 3rd
> party things.   Thus, other than a small “powered by” logo or similar in a
> non-prominant place, no other links out.   Also, all the
> non-ActiveMQ-essential things need to be able to be stripped out.
> >
> > Second, all the code related to interfacing and interacting with
> ActiveMQ/Artemis needs to be part of the ActiveMQ community.  This goes
> beyond branding.   Using the current ActiveMQ “plugin" from Hawt io is NOT
> ok unless all of that can be moved into the Apache community (which the
> developers did NOT want to do last time this was discussed).   Basically,
> how ActiveMQ is presented to the user MUST be completely under the control
> of the ActiveMQ community, not some other community.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> And with git / github, we can first propose how it will look like, and
> >> merge when it's pretty and ready. That's also a difference from 2 or 3
> >> years ago when these discussions were taking place, where even if git
> >> was being used the workflow was pretty much the same svn style.
> >>
> >> I won't be able myself to work on this for a few weeks as I am working
> >> on a few improvements around replication, that I want to do for 1.5.0.
> >> but I think this would open the possibility of someone else looking
> >> into that.. both from AMQ5 and/or Artemis perspective.
> >>
> >> so if you (anyone) start working around this give us a sign here, so
> >> there wouldn't be two people working on the same task.
> >>
> >>
> >> A request I make is.. lets start fresh and do something cool and
> nice... ;)
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:14 AM, jgenender <jgenender@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>> clebertsuconic wrote
> >>>> 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
> >>>> issue.
> >>>
> >>> I wouldn't speculate.  I wouldn't even attempt it unless you have
> examined
> >>> the issues and do a 5 minute perusal on the thread.  I won't argue
> what it
> >>> was because I, and some other non-Red Hat folks were central to that
> >>> discussion.
> >>>
> >>> My recommendation... don't rehash that.  Look at the primary problems
> were
> >>> (tl;dr; I mentioned them previously).  Come up with a reasonable
> community
> >>> based solution to the issues and present them.
> >>>
> >>> That said, I think branding would help significantly as long as any
> other
> >>> concerns are resolved.  I do know that templating it was certainly one
> of
> >>> the offered solutions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-tp4717136p4717302.html
> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org <mailto:dkulp@apache.org> - http://dankulp.com/blog <
> http://dankulp.com/blog>
> > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com <
> http://coders.talend.com/>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>



-- 
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino

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