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 Tue, 04 Oct 2016 15:57:49 GMT
@Hiram

The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top right corner).

I like hawt... and using it in a modular fashion embedded within activemq
and artemis would be a great solution.  Forgetting any relationships.

John

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:46 AM Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com>
wrote:

> 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