activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console
Date Fri, 07 Oct 2016 22:10:00 GMT
+1

On Oct 7, 2016 18:05, "Daniel Kulp" <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:

>
> I guess the first question that needs to be determined is if this will be
> done in the Artemis git repo or if we should create a new repo for this (so
> it could be shared for both 5.x and Artemis).   If a new repo, then just
> get the repo created and start committing code.   Don’t bother with the
> pull request, just start working on it and continue discussing it here.
>
> From my standpoint, I’m quite OK with a separate repo.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 2016, at 6:43 PM, 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
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>

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