I've taken some time to review the console. I don't think we're quite there yet in terms of meeting all of the goals outlined in the original email. However, I don't think we need to hold up merging the PR. Improvements can be made iteratively. Couple of comments:
Must be ActiveMQ Branded * Met. Looks good, particularly with the new logo ;). No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart from a powered by. * I don't see any powered by on the main screens. We can open a JIRA to track it once this is merged. This should be able to expand over time * Met. It's extendable. License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met * I've been through each source, license and notice file. Both in this project and the original project this is imported from. The original project was not properly licensed, which caused some concern. However, I've sent a PR which was merged. I think we're all good here. In summary, I think it's a great first start and something users can use pretty much straight away. +1 from me. Great work Michael. Thanks On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> wrote: > I just reviewed the new console via the PR. I really like it. Nice work! > > > Justin > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Clebert Suconic < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > That's fair guys.. I was just tempted to do it.. but won't to it. > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Michael André Pearce > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I would agree, we should stick to the plan. > > > > > > Merging straight after release and releasing again won't delay in > > reality the time people can use it. Apart from a few days at most. > > > > > > But will address/de risks any concerns. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > >> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:23, Timothy Bish <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On 07/13/2017 12:10 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > >>> I am tempted to merge it now actually.... > > >>> > > >>> Anyone opposed to this? it would be cool to have a console on this > > >>> next release.. if it's all good. > > >> > > >> Please stick to the original plan. I guessing there's other folks > like > > myself who haven't had time to even look at this new console yet. > > >> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael André Pearce > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> Hi All, > > >>>> > > >>>> I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner, and > > to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the > subject) > > >>>> > > >>>> The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users (including > > myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management console > (a > > small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and so > > becomes more and more pressing to resolve. > > >>>> > > >>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor- > > artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4. > > nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html> > > >>>> https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/ > > 39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker < > https://softwarerecs. > > stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console- > > for-artemis-jms-broker> > > >>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to- > > monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/ > > questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Based off the discussion here: > > >>>> > > >>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing- > > the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 <http://activemq.2283324.n4. > > nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199> > > >>>> > > >>>> We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but a > > small summary of noted in the above thread): > > >>>> > > >>>> Must be ActiveMQ Branded > > >>>> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart > > from a powered by. > > >>>> Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed > > >>>> Provide functionality to manage the broker > > >>>> This should be able to expand over time > > >>>> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met > > >>>> The war size should be kept to a minimum > > >>>> Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users > > >>>> Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in > > ActiveMQ Artemis project. > > >>>> > > >>>> Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the missing > > bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks to > > Dan, Clebert, Martyn). > > >>>> > > >>>> We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a web > > console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis. > > >>>> > > >>>> As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to bring > > your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review comments > > there. > > >>>> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 < > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385> > > >>>> > > >>>> Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this, so > > that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a built > > usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this into the > > next release. > > >>>> > > >>>> We propose: > > >>>> We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ > Artemis, > > WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming week. > > >>>> We will then subsequently look to merge and release another version > > of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean release > > with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost > > immediately after. > > >>>> > > >>>> I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra > > release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns. > > >>>> > > >>>> This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to > > iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio > project. > > I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and > simply > > see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable web > > management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and > maintenance > > as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community. > > >>>> > > >>>> Many thanks > > >>>> Mike > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Tim Bish > > >> twitter: @tabish121 > > >> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > >
