I think I just saw two great ideas: - A consolidated web console that is usable by both ActiveMQ and Artemis. - It should be an independent repository/utility.
I think all of the discussions are happening on a ML, but realistically if we're ready to start writing down some code, we need some of those utilities in place. Since PRs are mirrored to the MLs that would work, but I would hate to see it baked into one of the existing repos to make that happen. John On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:41 PM Jim Gomes <[email protected]> wrote: > I was under the impression that all Apache development discussions occur on > the email list. This is for legal and policy reasons. Please correct me if > I'm wrong. > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016, 9:43 AM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think this is pretty straightforward: > > > > i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both > > Artemis and ActiveMQ > > > > ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some metrics... > > > > > > iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the code. > > > > > > The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request.. > > someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical** > > discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then > > collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else. > > > > > > > > I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a > > request I am making here, probably the third time... lets CTRL-Alt-Del > > and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see everybody > > with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks > > like an Apache project, pretty and neat. > > > > > > Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from there. > > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is it > > > intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network of > > brokers? > > > Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it rely on > > JMX > > > or something else? > > > > > > Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something that's > > available > > > or some other solution. > > > > > > The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again for > > > something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go > > anywhere. > > > > > > My $0.02, > > > Hadrian > > > > > > > > > On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 on improving/adding a console. Providing a console out of the box > > is a > > >> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel Artemis > > >> would > > >> greatly benefit from. Whether it's HawtIO or something else we should > > >> make > > >> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis. > > >> > > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic > > >> <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament < > [email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> @Hiram > > >>>> > > >>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top right > > >>> > > >>> corner). > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following: > > >>> > > >>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects. Learn > more > > >>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:" > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> No other implications from what I see. > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > >
