Good grief. I'll get that one removed. I just created https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis-console-plugin.git. Please use that one instead.
Thanks for the heads up! Justin On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:23 AM Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/19/24 11:01, Justin Bertram wrote: > > Done - > https://github.com/apache/activemq-activemq-artemis-console-plugin > > > Looks like you included 'activemq' in the name when creating the repo so > now you have two activemq's in the new repo name, likely should get that > fixed. > > > > Justin > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:55 AM Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > -- > Tim Bish > >
