@Hiram The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top right corner).
I like hawt... and using it in a modular fashion embedded within activemq and artemis would be a great solution. Forgetting any relationships. John On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:46 AM Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd like to point out that HawtIO 2.0 is different from 1.x. Is been > modularized using bower components and any project can build a customized > HawtIO based console very easily with user specified plugins and branding. > Also please note, HawtIO is not a Red Hat product, it's an open source > project which Red Hat heavily contributes to. > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Clebert Suconic < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > @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 > > > > > > -- > Hiram Chirino > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. > [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino >
