> On Sep 30, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > wrote: > so... IMO, the Web console needs to look an apache product.. > regardless of what components you use. if someone can provide a clean > and nice implementation.. using whatever frameworks or components that > are apache (or compatible) license, I think that's a reasonable > consideration.
It’s a bit more than that…. It cannot be used to promote other 3rd party things. Thus, other than a small “powered by” logo or similar in a non-prominant place, no other links out. Also, all the non-ActiveMQ-essential things need to be able to be stripped out. Second, all the code related to interfacing and interacting with ActiveMQ/Artemis needs to be part of the ActiveMQ community. This goes beyond branding. Using the current ActiveMQ “plugin" from Hawt io is NOT ok unless all of that can be moved into the Apache community (which the developers did NOT want to do last time this was discussed). Basically, how ActiveMQ is presented to the user MUST be completely under the control of the ActiveMQ community, not some other community. Dan > > And with git / github, we can first propose how it will look like, and > merge when it's pretty and ready. That's also a difference from 2 or 3 > years ago when these discussions were taking place, where even if git > was being used the workflow was pretty much the same svn style. > > I won't be able myself to work on this for a few weeks as I am working > on a few improvements around replication, that I want to do for 1.5.0. > but I think this would open the possibility of someone else looking > into that.. both from AMQ5 and/or Artemis perspective. > > so if you (anyone) start working around this give us a sign here, so > there wouldn't be two people working on the same task. > > > A request I make is.. lets start fresh and do something cool and nice... ;) > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:14 AM, jgenender <[email protected]> wrote: >> clebertsuconic wrote >>> I don't want to read that discussion again.. but from what I remember >>> of what I once read, and after I talked to some guys in person, the >>> issue was where the component would live.. like the plugin being >>> outside of AMQ5 code. >>> >>> I believe that if we consumed hawt-io as a component (just like we >>> consume Jetty), and have the plugins, checkstyles, apache branding, >>> activemq5 and Artemis brand on the main repo, it shouldn't be an >>> issue. >> >> I wouldn't speculate. I wouldn't even attempt it unless you have examined >> the issues and do a 5 minute perusal on the thread. I won't argue what it >> was because I, and some other non-Red Hat folks were central to that >> discussion. >> >> My recommendation... don't rehash that. Look at the primary problems were >> (tl;dr; I mentioned them previously). Come up with a reasonable community >> based solution to the issues and present them. >> >> That said, I think branding would help significantly as long as any other >> concerns are resolved. I do know that templating it was certainly one of >> the offered solutions. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-tp4717136p4717302.html >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> - http://dankulp.com/blog <http://dankulp.com/blog> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com <http://coders.talend.com/>
