Agreed. My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console that comes with ActiveMQ. A messaging "product" should have its own console, if it is to be taken seriously by potential "customers". Providing an even playing field for consoles shouldn't be ActiveMQ's primary concern. ActiveMQ should concern itself with providing a best-of-breed messaging system, which should include a management console.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > James, > > 5. Is just business as usual, why should it be part of the poll? Users raise > an issue, it gets fixed. > > My $0.02, > Hadrian > > > > On 01/17/2014 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote: >> >> 1. -1 >> 2. -1 >> 3. -1 >> 4. +1 >> 5. Resurrect the "old" console and bring it up-to-date, fixing any >> outstanding bugs - +1 >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Robert Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion >>> has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards >>> consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it >>> to binding votes only ? >>> >>> >>> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to >>> deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones). >>> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console - and have a >>> second distribution with the original console >>> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console - ActiveMQ branded. >>> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only. >>> >>> Here’s my vote: >>> >>> [1]. +1 >>> [2] 0 >>> [3] 0 >>> [4] -1 >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> Rob >>> >
