John D. Ament-2 wrote > Just wondering - considering where a number of committers work. Why not > leverage hawt.io as a new console?
Oh boy... that was likely not the right thing to say... ;-) I see Pandora's box about to open up... and surprisingly, John, your answer concerns me as you are pretty good about the Apache way. ;-) I mean that as a compliment (mostly). I suggest you review the very long and heated discussion surrounding hawt.io that occurred surrounding its inclusion in ActiveMQ. Long story short, one of the main issues was what you just stated. A) The fact that where "number of committers work" left out others from ActiveMQ's perspective for how they can contribute and making it fair. B) There was certainly a branding issue that didn't make hawt.io a component of ActiveMQ. The thread regarding that has a very long discussion surrounding those items and its a very big sore spot in this community. Suggestions ranged from templating hawt.io to allow ActiveMQ to brand it, to actually making it a project at Apache.... both of which were non negotiable from the hawt.io side. So from that perspective... it's not going to work. If you are interested in having it become a part of ActiveMQ, I suggest that you review the thread and examine the proposed solutions and see if you can get your employer consider what was discussed. I would also attempt to do it without rehashing the negative side. As a person who works with many, many companies that use ActiveMQ... I see the included web console used nearly everywhere. I would say the web console to hawt.io installation ratio in the wild is about 20:1. So I just wanted to share that perspective. Therefore, I am very heavily aligned with Jim's comments and agree with him on that point. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-tp4717136p4717295.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
