a consolidated repo for AMQ and Artemis might be useful for other stuff as well. not just the web console.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:49 PM, John D. Ament <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > >> -- Clebert Suconic
