As Dan says there is a reference to being powered by in the about page. I was under the impression it shouldn't be up front an centre, but in the about area would suffice.
Sent from my iPhone > On 27 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 27, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Martyn Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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. > > It shouldn’t be on the main screen…. There is information on the “About” page > (at least last time I looked at it) which is enough. > > > Dan > > > >> >> 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 >>>> >>> > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com >
