Karaf ships with a console On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > 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 > > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > 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 > >>> <[email protected]<javascript:;> > > > >>> 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/ > >
