It has the tui on by default On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:53, James Carman > <ja...@carmanconsulting.com<javascript:;>> > 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<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > >> > >> On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman > >> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com<javascript:;> > <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:;> > <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:;> > <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/ > >
