Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <65f1d0ce-7055-2235-e858-f8a4ed7ea9ec@gmail.com>
References: <CACHnxzw3=6fhuoWSO2-2tZ+7HR9hvfe0RHO-rF=89eZQY5mWrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGeZ+biGrVqL+GMr6ZMWtzJFSeWzqYZ=EZY1xF3_jf5kG+SxXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOqetn9oZBi7Amg_4OXFp-4kgrSXCHDYoLcg8hHj+6YBHCH4iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1475247110837-4717295.post@n4.nabble.com> <CAKF+bspfFXwKucb-h1eiQUTGydXi_fSpwaMZ79YQcKga2R8C2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <1475248484903-4717302.post@n4.nabble.com> <CAKF+bsq4ak-1qHc7tOv0-eBq+a3X+T4-+tWo3X23KXf9_wQi9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <3C052108-AEBB-446F-95DA-CCEDF6120C44@apache.org> <CAKF+bspz3+jm6dQEAq_g1mabuGAzhPWmEFD99R0N3O9PjWTDbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGZ-RD+ucD-Kz-oCWH8hgE0zRt1aScBtkZWpjUaViKXhvvb2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOqetn_gUUtuT-=5BUhGvdnxGM8f=T5GWj9YiBT8P0Ra22yazQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKF+bso_VVRbb-2SXSk=NPus_Q0U5zYL6zHrRfNwCybjbamZSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH6wpnp31mMSh8o6+Jwdtd_0A5oo+ZB75wv2v=uZbi9UVSU9Jg@mail.gmail.com> <65f1d0ce-7055-2235-e858-f8a4ed7ea9ec@gmail.com>
From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 12:43:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKF+bsqaQmGwEMg7+HoXvAUPrteMVNcDcriGH-biDWdyhOpjoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console
To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
archived-at: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 16:43:48 -0000

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 broke=
rs?
> Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it rely on JM=
X
> or something else?
>
> Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something that's availa=
ble
> 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 anywher=
e.
>
> 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=E2=80=99s part of a community of Red Hat projects. Lea=
rn more
>>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  No other implications from what I see.
>>>
>>
>


--=20
Clebert Suconic