I guess the argument to be made is that the web console isn't a 3rd party library, it's a more involved part of the user experience. Which is true. But so is the Spring Framework. We didn't write our own DI framework for that.
The point is the "process" to resolving any issues would be the same process we follow for any other outside community software we use. > If we the PMC does not like some detail of > hawtio we just need to open issues to address them and once it's to > the PMC's liking we can then package it. And this is exactly the way we've been doing it with other external community software. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote: > Starting up a new thread to avoid hijacking the original POLL thread. > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Without the hawt.io community donating the relevant ActiveMQ portions to the >> ASF we will not be able to get a consensus around proposal #3. Thus, that >> needs to be taken off the table. > > I think that's a faulty assumption that needs to get discussed and addressed. > > Any hawtio UI that we package in the ActiveMQ will be reviewed by the > PMC. Like any 3rd party library that we ship, it has to have an > approved license and it's functionality has to be tested and verified > by the ActiveMQ project. If we the PMC does not like some detail of > hawtio we just need to open issues to address them and once it's to > the PMC's liking we can then package it. This is no different from > any other 3rd party lib we use so why are we treating it differently? > > -- > Hiram Chirino -- Christian Posta http://www.christianposta.com/blog twitter: @christianposta
