so I am open to names, how about artemis-console-plugin v1.0.0 On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:24, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 on activemq-artemis-console-plugin > > > As Robbie said, you will need different versions for it. I feel like > it would be easier to use a different name... but I don't mind what > you have to do. Whatever makes it easier to be implemented. > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 1:10 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic >
