Rob, that's not quite correct. Karaf *ships with a console*, ActiveMQ
also ships with a console. The issue we are discussing now is the distro
content, right?
Hadrian
On 01/17/2014 05:07 PM, Robert Davies wrote:
On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:53, James Carman <[email protected]> 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 <[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/
Rob Davies
————————
Red Hat, Inc
http://hawt.io - #dontcha
Twitter: rajdavies
Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
