On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:53, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> Karaf ships with a console Yes - its not installed by default - which is equivalent to option 1. > > On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman >> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com<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 >>> <hzbar...@gmail.com<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 >>>>> <rajdav...@gmail.com<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/ >> >> Rob Davies ———————— Red Hat, Inc http://hawt.io - #dontcha Twitter: rajdavies Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
