On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> 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”. I don’t buy in to that at all - having to hit refresh on the web browser in 2014 to see if the message count has increased just doesn’t cut it - and it hasn’t for a long time. As has been said before, the argument about shipping a console to compete can be used for a container too - but Karaf doesn’t, it makes it optional - and that’s a valid point of view that’s worth replicating. > 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. Or point people to a host of alternatives that would enhance the user experience. What I really don’t understand is that the people who are active committers, and actually fix the security issues as they come are all saying get rid of the console and our views are being ignored. Its not our core competence, nor should it have to be - we are writing a message broker. If you feel strongly about it you are of course more than welcome to help write a new console that can be incorporated at a later date. > > 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 >>>> >> Rob Davies ———————— Red Hat, Inc http://hawt.io - #dontcha Twitter: rajdavies Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
