I said console in my statement, not web console. You need a way to manage stuff.
On Friday, January 17, 2014, Christian Posta <[email protected]> wrote: > 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:;> > -- > Christian Posta > http://www.christianposta.com/blog > twitter: @christianposta >
