Agree.
In the other thread it was clarified why the hawt.io console in the
current form cannot be included in the activemq distro. I would have
expected the hawt.io devs to come with a proposal on how they plan to
address that if they want #3 to happen. Suggestions were offered, but I
saw no reply or feedback. Continuing this conversation without an
understanding of what the hawt.io devs intentions are is, imo, not a
great use of time.
My $0.02,
Hadrian
On 01/21/2014 11:30 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
There is a huge difference between “needing help” in that area (as you put it)
and “having someone else do it for us”.
For #3 to work, IMO two things need to be done:
1) Skinning (obvious)
2) All the ActiveMQ related code needs to be moved into the ActiveMQ project.
If someone is using ActiveMQ and wants to contribute changes to how the console
looks or displays items or such, they should be making contributions to
ActiveMQ, not some external community (open source, free, or otherwise). The
hawt.io “framework” of libraries and such can remain outside, but the ActiveMQ
specific portions needs to be part of this community. If it’s going to be the
visible frontend of this project, we need to make sure it drives the developer
willing to contribute enhancements into ActiveMQ.
If the hawt.io community is unwilling (or unable) to do the second part, then,
IMO, #3 is a non-starter. If they ARE willing to do that, then great. Lets
start figuring out how to get that done. But that’s something that would
need to be discussed on their side first.
Dan
On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote:
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
