well, karaf does ship with a console, the command-line shell. but i think we're talking about the web console.
in 2.3.3, i don't see a webconsole shipped in the distro: http://pastebin.com/zepcUHMX in 3.0.0 i don't either: http://pastebin.com/cfV3yG0Z On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >> >> > -- Christian Posta http://www.christianposta.com/blog twitter: @christianposta
