+1 for a separate repo

Justin

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:56 AM Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Clebert, I think it will be weeks rather than days so I would just release
> when you are ready.
>
> Robbie, I think for now a separate repo is my preferred solution, the
> console can actually be run outside of embedded artemis so development is
> easy. Can someone create a new repo?
>
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 17:45, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If it was a matter of 1 day to include it I would prefer to wait for it.
> > Other than that then I’m releasing on Monday.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 1:40 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'd say the answer to 'Wait for <foo> to do a release?' is usually no
> > > unless its about a blocking bug/regression or there's really nothing
> > > else important ready to go. This definitely isnt that and also isnt
> > > ready yet while other stuff is, so seems a clear no to me.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 16:58, Clebert Suconic <
> clebert.suco...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Should I wait for the 2.33 release ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > See my other thread about the heads up.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Or you think this may take a lot longer ?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:27 AM Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The current Artemis console is based on HawtIO 1 which itself is
> > > written
> > > > > using Bootstrap. Bootstrap is old and no longer maintained so
> HawtIO
> > > (v3/4)
> > > > > has moved to use React and Patternfly and is also written in
> > > Typescript.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have been working in the background over the last several months
> to
> > > > > upgrade the console to hawtIO 4, this work can be found here
> > > > > <
> > > https://github.com/andytaylor/activemq-artemis/tree/artemis-console-ng
> >.
> > > > > This is still a WIP but is close to completion, I basically have to
> > > finish
> > > > > off some branding, fix the console tests and implement an upgrade
> > > feature.
> > > > > A couple of things to note:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >    - I have separated out the JMX tree and its tabs from the tabs
> > that
> > > are
> > > > >    not related to the tree selection. I always found this a bit
> > > strange so
> > > > > now
> > > > >    there are 2 tabs Artemis and Artemis JMX, the latter uses the
> JMX
> > > tree
> > > > > as
> > > > >    before. It is possible however to do anything in the Artemis tab
> > > that
> > > > > you
> > > > >    can do in the JMX tab, view attributes and operations for
> > instance.
> > > > > There
> > > > >    is an issue currently where if there are thousands of address or
> > > queues
> > > > >    then performance becomes an issue. this is because the whole JMX
> > > tree is
> > > > >    loaded into memory and this can cause even the broker to fall
> > over.
> > > My
> > > > > plan
> > > > >    at some point is to allow disabling the JMX view and to lazy
> load
> > in
> > > > > MBeans
> > > > >    as and when needed, this is a task for further down the road
> tho.
> > > > >    - The console is built using yarn and is incredibly slow to
> build,
> > > in
> > > > >    fact it takes longer than it takes to build the rest of Artemis.
> > It
> > > may
> > > > > be
> > > > >    better to have the new console in its own repository, release it
> > > > >    independently and just consume it in Artemis. This means some
> > extra
> > > work
> > > > >    for a release but once the console becomes stable it shouldn't
> be
> > > too
> > > > > much
> > > > >    work. I will however let the community decide what is the best
> > > approach.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There are still a few issues I know of, the Attributes tab seems to
> > > delay
> > > > > loading and the broker topology diagram is incomplete but feel free
> > to
> > > > > suggest any improvements or buglets you come across on this thread.
> > > > > Hopefully I can tie up the loose ends soon and raise a PR in the
> not
> > > too
> > > > > distant future.
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to