And how exactly do you plan to achieve this without changes in hawt.io,
and consequently buy-in from the hawt.io devs? Fork hawt.io?
Hadrian
On 01/21/2014 12:11 PM, Gary Tully wrote:
hadrian, it is the activemq devs that want to include hawtio, not the
other way around.
lets concentrate on what we (activemq devs/pmc) can do to make the web
experience better.
The only technical issue with hawtio in 5.9 is the branding. I say we
just fix that.
On 21 January 2014 17:00, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote:
Agree.
In the other thread it was clarified why the hawt.io console in the current
form cannot be included in the activemq distro. I would have expected the
hawt.io devs to come with a proposal on how they plan to address that if
they want #3 to happen. Suggestions were offered, but I saw no reply or
feedback. Continuing this conversation without an understanding of what the
hawt.io devs intentions are is, imo, not a great use of time.
My $0.02,
Hadrian
On 01/21/2014 11:30 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
There is a huge difference between “needing help” in that area (as you put
it) and “having someone else do it for us”.
For #3 to work, IMO two things need to be done:
1) Skinning (obvious)
2) All the ActiveMQ related code needs to be moved into the ActiveMQ
project. If someone is using ActiveMQ and wants to contribute changes to
how the console looks or displays items or such, they should be making
contributions to ActiveMQ, not some external community (open source, free,
or otherwise). The hawt.io “framework” of libraries and such can remain
outside, but the ActiveMQ specific portions needs to be part of this
community. If it’s going to be the visible frontend of this project, we
need to make sure it drives the developer willing to contribute enhancements
into ActiveMQ.
If the hawt.io community is unwilling (or unable) to do the second part,
then, IMO, #3 is a non-starter. If they ARE willing to do that, then great.
Lets start figuring out how to get that done. But that’s something that
would need to be discussed on their side first.
Dan
On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote:
There are a lot of 0s and +1s for option [3] and two -1s
Let me make a case for it to try and get consensus around it.
I want to 'replace' the existing web console with something better.
For configuration activemq did not build a dependency injection
framework, we shipped spring.
Learning from that, it does not make sense to me that we build and
maintain a html5 web console.
An admin/management web front end based over our extensive JMX api
sounds perfect but it needs
a community to evolve and improve it. We (activemq committers) have
proven that we need help in that area.
Anyone what to change their vote or further expand on the technical
reasons we should not be branding hatwio?
On 17 January 2014 13:33, Robert Davies <[email protected]> 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
--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
