@Daniel +1... I share the same view... Lets just move forward.. and forget the past thread.
@Christopher Shannon.. in regard to your other email.. +1 On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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/> -- Clebert Suconic
