hadrian, it is the activemq devs that want to include hawtio, not the other way around. lets concentrate on what we (activemq devs/pmc) can do to make the web experience better. The only technical issue with hawtio in 5.9 is the branding. I say we just fix that.
On 21 January 2014 17:00, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >> > -- http://redhat.com http://blog.garytully.com
