activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?
Date Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:13:27 GMT
Agreed, having a good user experience should be a high priority and having
some way to configure a broker and monitor a broker at runtime that is user
friendly is ideal.  If the web console can rely on something like a REST
service and JMX for data then it will also allow other tools to be built to
help with management.  Besides a web console I also find a command line
interface based console to be really useful.  Being able to quickly run
commands from a shell to do things such as make configuration changes or
view metrics is useful because it is fast and can be easily scripted.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Martyn Taylor <mtaylor@redhat.com> wrote:

> Thanks for restoring this discussion.
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What about start doing it right after Artemis 2.0.0 is out? Aim it to
> > 2.1.0 (on Artemis, being compatible with AMQ5 (still a question mark
> > on how to do it.. but I"m taking this is a requirement)).
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Christopher Shannon
> > <christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yes there seemed to be some consensus to build a plugin hosted here at
> > > Apache or to build a new console altogether to support 5.x and Artemis.
> > > And we would keep the existing console until then.
> >
> Yes!
>
> The console is something I am really passionate about.  In my opinion user
> experience is the number one priority and the lack of any form of console
> in Artemis is just a disaster.  We're really missing a trick here as I
> think we could build something fantastic for both ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis.
>
> >
> > > However, the hold up has always been finding people who have time to
> work
> > > on it and want to work on it.  If someone wants to create a repo and
> > start
> > > working on it that would probably help to get others involved.
> >
> I'm more than happy to take this on and get a repository created and put a
> basic framework in place.  This should get the ball rolling.
>
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > On Feb 17, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Christian Schneider
> > >> > <chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> > >> >> I have read the old threads about the web console.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If I understood correctly then we would like to get rid of the
> > current
> > >> >> activemq web console but need a replacement. There is hawt.io
> which
> > >> >> functionally would work but which is not compatible from a
> community
> > >> >> standpoint.
> > >> >
> > >> > My understand was: as long as it looked like an apache console, and
> > >> > not a commercial product belonging to any company it would be ok.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> *AND* all of the ActiveMQ/Artemis related bits are written and
> > maintained
> > >> here at Apache as part of this community.  How the queues and brokers
> > and
> > >> such are presented to the user is completely under the control of this
> > >> community.
> > >>
> > >> In other words: we don’t take the activemq plugin or whatever they
> have
> > >> and use it as is. (Unless they want to donate it to this community)
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Daniel Kulp
> > >> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>

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