There are a lot of 0s and +1s for option [3] and two -1s Let me make a case for it to try and get consensus around it.
I want to 'replace' the existing web console with something better. For configuration activemq did not build a dependency injection framework, we shipped spring. Learning from that, it does not make sense to me that we build and maintain a html5 web console. An admin/management web front end based over our extensive JMX api sounds perfect but it needs a community to evolve and improve it. We (activemq committers) have proven that we need help in that area. Anyone what to change their vote or further expand on the technical reasons we should not be branding hatwio? On 17 January 2014 13:33, Robert Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote: > I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has > varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards > consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it > to binding votes only ? > > > 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to deploy > a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones). > 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console - and have a second > distribution with the original console > 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console - ActiveMQ branded. > 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only. > > Here’s my vote: > > [1]. +1 > [2] 0 > [3] 0 > [4] -1 > > thanks, > > Rob > -- http://redhat.com http://blog.garytully.com
