activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael André Pearce <>
Subject Re: [GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...
Date Thu, 06 Jul 2017 17:20:58 GMT
I think having it for one version as a release preview is a good approach that way we can get
feedback also earlier on what we may want to add in which priority. Nothing better than user
feedback which we only get after release 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 Jul 2017, at 18:06, Daniel Kulp <> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 2017, at 1:00 PM, Michael André Pearce <>
>> My view on 2 is that currently there is no capability having anything is better than
>> Any extra features can be added over time by those willing to contribute. 
>> Indeed there are some bits I'd like to add but having something is better than nothing
and certainly can now start the ball rolling.
> Well, yes and no.    Once "released", you kind of have to build off of what’s there
and continue to support that way of doing things.   If what’s there doesn’t make any sense
and needs to be completely re-organized or something, that could be difficult if we have to
continue supporting the current layout.   Kind of like a backwards compatibility thing.  
 I’d like a few folks to make sure that what’s there makes some sense going forward and
adding the stuff that is missing can be done by extending what’s there in a way that makes
sense.    That said, for the first release, if we kind of release note the console as a “technology
preview, subject to change” or similar, I’d be less concerned. 
> Dan
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 6 Jul 2017, at 17:21, Daniel Kulp <> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 6, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Clebert Suconic <>
>>>> It seems that this is almost ready.. if we fix logging it could be merged...
>>>> It would be awesome if we could have the next release with this
>>>> already... even if we delay another week.
>>>> @Dan: WDYT?
>>> Well, there are basically 4 “types” of things that need to be taken care
>>> 1) Branding/skinning/packaging : this is what my lists have been concentrating
on.  Things are certainly looking better there.   I just did a build and things look much
better.  I’m “slightly” concerned about the downgrade from 1.5.2 to 1.5.0 which I’m
assuming is due to the flight recorder stuff.   Certainly OK for now, but longer term I think
we’d like a better option so that we can get whatever security fixes are needed in future
versions.    There are some additional options to trim the war even further such as an overlay
config of:
>>>        <overlays>
>>>            <overlay>
>>>                <groupId>io.hawt</groupId>
>>>                <artifactId>hawtio-web</artifactId>
>>>                <excludes>
>>>                    <exclude>bower_components/**/*</exclude>
>>>                    <exclude>app/site/**/*</exclude>
>>>                    <exclude>app/core/**/*</exclude>
>>>                </excludes>
>>>            </overlay>
>>>        </overlays>
>>> 2) Actual capabilities :  I haven’t looked at this at all.   Art had a list
of things he expected to be able to manage based on the capabilities of the 5.x console. 
 I’m not sure if his list is completely covered by the new plugin or not as I haven’t
looked at this aspect.
>>> 3) Integration : there are gaps here related to logging, security, user/roles,
etc… For testing, we’re currently bypassing all of this.
>>> 4) Legal : There are MAJOR updates needed for the License/Notice files.   It’s
a shame that the folks aren’t doing this properly and meeting the legal requirements
of the licenses of everything they are including.  Just means we’re going to have to do
it.   This is the big thing as I have no idea how long this will take.   For every file in
the war (and every file within the jars within the war), we need to check it’s license status
and figure out what needs to be added to the license and notice files.   That’s not trivial.
   With the above excludes, large chunks of things go away (the bootstrap/docs for example
are CC-BY which has notice requirements) so there is less work to do, but there are still
a bunch of things in there.
>>> Because 4 is a big “unknown” and I have no idea on 2, I really wouldn’t
hold up the current releases for it.    In addition, since this is a “big change”, I’d
certainly want to make sure the rest of the community that hasn’t looked at it gets a good
chance to do so prior to a release.   Gut feeling is that this is much more than a “3-4
day delay”.  
>>> -- 
>>> Daniel Kulp
>>> -
>>> Talend Community Coder -
> -- 
> Daniel Kulp
> -
> Talend Community Coder -

View raw message