I will go ahead and request the new repo today On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 18:39, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 > >
