On 3/18/24 13:33, Andy Taylor wrote:
so I am open to names, how about artemis-console-plugin v1.0.0
+1
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:24, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
wrote:
+1 on activemq-artemis-console-plugin
As Robbie said, you will need different versions for it. I feel like
it would be easier to use a different name... but I don't mind what
you have to do. Whatever makes it easier to be implemented.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 1:10 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On the module name, if it stays the same then consideration would also
need to be given to the version. It would need to be higher than
before to keep using the same name, but using a broker version isnt
necessarily that obvious if we dont expect to release it on the same
schedule as the broker.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 16:46, Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
+1 for avtivemq-artemis-console-plugin but I think we should keep the
artifact name as it is now for consistency, i.e. artemis-plugin
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 16:29, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com
wrote:
We should discuss the name then someone can create it via
https://selfserve.apache.org
It would be something of the form activemq-artemis-<foo> for
consistency. Regarding <foo>, what is actually going in it, a console
'plugin' ?
So perhaps activemq-artemis-console-plugin ?
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 07:46, Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Lets go with a separate repo then, @clebert or anyone, can you
create me
a
new repo or talk me thru how to do it. What shall we call this new
component/repo, considering we will still have an artemis-console
module
in
the artemis repo?
Clebert, I will add this new fields in your PR to the new console
as
well.
Andy
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 at 19:03, Clebert Suconic <
clebert.suco...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think we have a consensus on a separate repo.
@Andy: me an Anton, we wre adding a field for internal queues
in the
admin
console. If you could make sure we keep that on the new one
please ?
Or
let us know how to adjust it?
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4856
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:29 AM Justin Bertram <
jbert...@apache.org>
wrote:
+1 for a separate repo
Justin
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:56 AM Andy Taylor <
andy.tayl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Clebert, I think it will be weeks rather than days so I
would just
release
when you are ready.
Robbie, I think for now a separate repo is my preferred
solution,
the
console can actually be run outside of embedded artemis so
development
is
easy. Can someone create a new repo?
On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 17:45, Clebert Suconic <
clebert.suco...@gmail.com
wrote:
If it was a matter of 1 day to include it I would prefer
to wait
for
it.
Other than that then I’m releasing on Monday.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 1:40 PM Robbie Gemmell <
robbie.gemm...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'd say the answer to 'Wait for <foo> to do a release?'
is
usually
no
unless its about a blocking bug/regression or there's
really
nothing
else important ready to go. This definitely isnt that
and also
isnt
ready yet while other stuff is, so seems a clear no to
me.
On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 16:58, Clebert Suconic <
clebert.suco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Should I wait for the 2.33 release ?
See my other thread about the heads up.
Or you think this may take a lot longer ?
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:27 AM Andy Taylor <
andy.tayl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The current Artemis console is based on HawtIO 1
which
itself
is
written
using Bootstrap. Bootstrap is old and no longer
maintained
so
HawtIO
(v3/4)
has moved to use React and Patternfly and is also
written
in
Typescript.
I have been working in the background over the last
several
months
to
upgrade the console to hawtIO 4, this work can be
found
here
<
https://github.com/andytaylor/activemq-artemis/tree/artemis-console-ng
.
This is still a WIP but is close to completion, I
basically
have
to
finish
off some branding, fix the console tests and
implement an
upgrade
feature.
A couple of things to note:
- I have separated out the JMX tree and its tabs
from
the
tabs
that
are
not related to the tree selection. I always found
this
a bit
strange so
now
there are 2 tabs Artemis and Artemis JMX, the
latter
uses
the
JMX
tree
as
before. It is possible however to do anything in
the
Artemis
tab
that
you
can do in the JMX tab, view attributes and
operations
for
instance.
There
is an issue currently where if there are
thousands of
address
or
queues
then performance becomes an issue. this is
because the
whole
JMX
tree is
loaded into memory and this can cause even the
broker to
fall
over.
My
plan
at some point is to allow disabling the JMX view
and to
lazy
load
in
MBeans
as and when needed, this is a task for further
down the
road
tho.
- The console is built using yarn and is
incredibly
slow to
build,
in
fact it takes longer than it takes to build the
rest of
Artemis.
It
may
be
better to have the new console in its own
repository,
release
it
independently and just consume it in Artemis.
This means
some
extra
work
for a release but once the console becomes stable
it
shouldn't
be
too
much
work. I will however let the community decide
what is
the
best
approach.
There are still a few issues I know of, the
Attributes tab
seems
to
delay
loading and the broker topology diagram is
incomplete but
feel
free
to
suggest any improvements or buglets you come across
on this
thread.
Hopefully I can tie up the loose ends soon and raise
a PR
in
the
not
too
distant future.
Andy
--
Clebert Suconic
--
Tim Bish
