+1 On Oct 7, 2016 18:05, "Daniel Kulp" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I guess the first question that needs to be determined is if this will be > done in the Artemis git repo or if we should create a new repo for this (so > it could be shared for both 5.x and Artemis). If a new repo, then just > get the repo created and start committing code. Don’t bother with the > pull request, just start working on it and continue discussing it here. > > From my standpoint, I’m quite OK with a separate repo. > > Dan > > > > > > On Oct 7, 2016, at 6:43 PM, 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 > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > >
