Just to address the technical question of skinning the console, we've a
vendor.js file just for that purpose. So at the simplest level skinning
would be a matter of extending the existing hawtio-web.war and replacing
the vendor.js file, and likely adding your own .css file.
So in vendor.js you could do (for example):
var link = $("<link>")
$("head").append(link);
link.attr({
rel: 'stylesheet',
type: 'text/css',
href: 'css/my-custom-css.css'
});
// ensure the built-in branding module doesn't kick in at all
Branding.enabled = false;
// then you need a plugin to customize the branding strings
angular.module('myBranding', ['hawtioCore',
'hawtio-branding']).run(function (branding) {
branding.appName = 'ActiveMQ Web Console';
branding.appLogo = 'img/branding/MyLogo.png';
branding.loginBg = 'img/branding/MyLoginScreen.png';
//gets rid of the header nav bar on the login screen
branding.fullscreenLogin = true;
);
hawtioPluginLoader.addModule('myBranding');
Then in my-custom-css.css you can rework the UI as much as you like really.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
