turns out I don't have permissions to create a repo, could someone from the PMC do this for me?
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 09:27, Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I will go ahead and request the new repo today > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 18:39, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3/18/24 13:33, Andy Taylor wrote: >> > so I am open to names, how about artemis-console-plugin v1.0.0 >> >> +1 >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Tim Bish >> >>
