+1 for avtivemq-artemis-console-plugin but I think we should keep the artifact name as it is now for consistency, i.e. artemis-plugin
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 16:29, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > We should discuss the name then someone can create it via > https://selfserve.apache.org > > It would be something of the form activemq-artemis-<foo> for > consistency. Regarding <foo>, what is actually going in it, a console > 'plugin' ? > > So perhaps activemq-artemis-console-plugin ? > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 07:46, Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Lets go with a separate repo then, @clebert or anyone, can you create me > a > > new repo or talk me thru how to do it. What shall we call this new > > component/repo, considering we will still have an artemis-console module > in > > the artemis repo? > > > > Clebert, I will add this new fields in your PR to the new console as > well. > > > > Andy > > > > On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 at 19:03, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > I think we have a consensus on a separate repo. > > > > > > > > > @Andy: me an Anton, we wre adding a field for internal queues in the > admin > > > console. If you could make sure we keep that on the new one please ? > Or > > > let us know how to adjust it? > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4856 > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:29 AM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
