On the module name, if it stays the same then consideration would also need to be given to the version. It would need to be higher than before to keep using the same name, but using a broker version isnt necessarily that obvious if we dont expect to release it on the same schedule as the broker.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 16:46, Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
