Correct On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, 14:29 Justin Bertram, <jbert...@apache.org> wrote:
> Just to confirm...The repo name should be > "activemq-artemis-console-plugin", right? > > > Justin > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:22 AM Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > > >> > > >> > > >
