[DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
53 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

Justin Bertram-2
All comments on pull requests sent to https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis are echoed on the mailing list.  A quick look at the Hadoop and Kafka GitHub repos shows that they also discuss pull requests directly.  I'm not sure if those are echoed on their mailing lists or not, though.


Justin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Gomes" <[hidden email]>
To: "ActiveMQ Dev" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2016 4:40:58 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

I was under the impression that all Apache development discussions occur on
the email list. This is for legal and policy reasons. Please correct me if
I'm wrong.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016, 9:43 AM Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I think this is pretty straightforward:
>
> i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both
> Artemis and ActiveMQ
>
> ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some metrics...
>
>
> iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the code.
>
>
> The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request..
> someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical**
> discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then
> collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else.
>
>
>
> I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a
> request I am making here, probably the third time... lets CTRL-Alt-Del
> and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see everybody
> with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks
> like an Apache project, pretty and neat.
>
>
> Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from there.
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is it
> > intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network of
> brokers?
> > Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it rely on
> JMX
> > or something else?
> >
> > Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something that's
> available
> > or some other solution.
> >
> > The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again for
> > something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go
> anywhere.
> >
> > My $0.02,
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
> > On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 on improving/adding a console.  Providing a console out of the box
> is a
> >> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel Artemis
> >> would
> >> greatly benefit from.  Whether it's HawtIO or something else we should
> >> make
> >> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic
> >> <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> @Hiram
> >>>>
> >>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top right
> >>>
> >>> corner).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following:
> >>>
> >>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects. Learn more
> >>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  No other implications from what I see.
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

dkulp
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic

I guess the first question that needs to be determined is if this will be done in the Artemis git repo or if we should create a new repo for this (so it could be shared for both 5.x and Artemis).   If a new repo, then just get the repo created and start committing code.   Don’t bother with the pull request, just start working on it and continue discussing it here.

From my standpoint, I’m quite OK with a separate repo.  

Dan




> On Oct 7, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I think this is pretty straightforward:
>
> i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both
> Artemis and ActiveMQ
>
> ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some metrics...
>
>
> iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the code.
>
>
> The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request..
> someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical**
> discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then
> collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else.
>
>
>
> I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a
> request I am making here, probably the third time... lets CTRL-Alt-Del
> and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see everybody
> with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks
> like an Apache project, pretty and neat.
>
>
> Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from there.
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is it
>> intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network of brokers?
>> Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it rely on JMX
>> or something else?
>>
>> Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something that's available
>> or some other solution.
>>
>> The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again for
>> something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go anywhere.
>>
>> My $0.02,
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>> On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 on improving/adding a console.  Providing a console out of the box is a
>>> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel Artemis
>>> would
>>> greatly benefit from.  Whether it's HawtIO or something else we should
>>> make
>>> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> @Hiram
>>>>>
>>>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top right
>>>>
>>>> corner).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following:
>>>>
>>>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects. Learn more
>>>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No other implications from what I see.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic

--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

John D. Ament-2
+1

On Oct 7, 2016 18:05, "Daniel Kulp" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I guess the first question that needs to be determined is if this will be
> done in the Artemis git repo or if we should create a new repo for this (so
> it could be shared for both 5.x and Artemis).   If a new repo, then just
> get the repo created and start committing code.   Don’t bother with the
> pull request, just start working on it and continue discussing it here.
>
> From my standpoint, I’m quite OK with a separate repo.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think this is pretty straightforward:
> >
> > i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both
> > Artemis and ActiveMQ
> >
> > ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some metrics...
> >
> >
> > iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the code.
> >
> >
> > The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request..
> > someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical**
> > discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then
> > collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a
> > request I am making here, probably the third time... lets CTRL-Alt-Del
> > and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see everybody
> > with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks
> > like an Apache project, pretty and neat.
> >
> >
> > Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from there.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is it
> >> intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network of
> brokers?
> >> Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it rely on
> JMX
> >> or something else?
> >>
> >> Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something that's
> available
> >> or some other solution.
> >>
> >> The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again for
> >> something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go
> anywhere.
> >>
> >> My $0.02,
> >> Hadrian
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +1 on improving/adding a console.  Providing a console out of the box
> is a
> >>> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel Artemis
> >>> would
> >>> greatly benefit from.  Whether it's HawtIO or something else we should
> >>> make
> >>> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic
> >>> <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @Hiram
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top right
> >>>>
> >>>> corner).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects. Learn more
> >>>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No other implications from what I see.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by Jim Gomes
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I was under the impression that all Apache development discussions occur on
> the email list.

As Justin Bertram Said, all PR comments are sent to the dev-list.

What I'm really proposing, it's to be practical... to have something
concrete to talk about on top of the code.



 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>

> wrote:
>
>> I think this is pretty straightforward:
>>
>> i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both
>> Artemis and ActiveMQ
>>
>> ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some metrics...
>>
>>
>> iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the code.
>>
>>
>> The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request..
>> someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical**
>> discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then
>> collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a
>> request I am making here, probably the third time... lets CTRL-Alt-Del
>> and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see everybody
>> with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks
>> like an Apache project, pretty and neat.
>>
>>
>> Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from there.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is it
>> > intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network of
>> brokers?
>> > Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it rely on
>> JMX
>> > or something else?
>> >
>> > Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something that's
>> available
>> > or some other solution.
>> >
>> > The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again for
>> > something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go
>> anywhere.
>> >
>> > My $0.02,
>> > Hadrian
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1 on improving/adding a console.  Providing a console out of the box
>> is a
>> >> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel Artemis
>> >> would
>> >> greatly benefit from.  Whether it's HawtIO or something else we should
>> >> make
>> >> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic
>> >> <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> @Hiram
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top right
>> >>>
>> >>> corner).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following:
>> >>>
>> >>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects. Learn more
>> >>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:"
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  No other implications from what I see.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by John D. Ament-2
a consolidated repo for AMQ and Artemis might be useful for other
stuff as well. not just the web console.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:49 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think I just saw two great ideas:
>
> - A consolidated web console that is usable by both ActiveMQ and Artemis.
> - It should be an independent repository/utility.
>
> I think all of the discussions are happening on a ML, but realistically if
> we're ready to start writing down some code, we need some of those
> utilities in place.  Since PRs are mirrored to the MLs that would work, but
> I would hate to see it baked into one of the existing repos to make that
> happen.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:41 PM Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I was under the impression that all Apache development discussions occur on
>> the email list. This is for legal and policy reasons. Please correct me if
>> I'm wrong.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016, 9:43 AM Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I think this is pretty straightforward:
>> >
>> > i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both
>> > Artemis and ActiveMQ
>> >
>> > ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some metrics...
>> >
>> >
>> > iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the code.
>> >
>> >
>> > The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request..
>> > someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical**
>> > discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then
>> > collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a
>> > request I am making here, probably the third time... lets CTRL-Alt-Del
>> > and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see everybody
>> > with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks
>> > like an Apache project, pretty and neat.
>> >
>> >
>> > Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from there.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is it
>> > > intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network of
>> > brokers?
>> > > Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it rely on
>> > JMX
>> > > or something else?
>> > >
>> > > Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something that's
>> > available
>> > > or some other solution.
>> > >
>> > > The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again for
>> > > something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go
>> > anywhere.
>> > >
>> > > My $0.02,
>> > > Hadrian
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> +1 on improving/adding a console.  Providing a console out of the box
>> > is a
>> > >> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel Artemis
>> > >> would
>> > >> greatly benefit from.  Whether it's HawtIO or something else we should
>> > >> make
>> > >> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic
>> > >> <[hidden email]>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > >>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> @Hiram
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top right
>> > >>>
>> > >>> corner).
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects. Learn
>> more
>> > >>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:"
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>  No other implications from what I see.
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>> >
>>



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

Fabio Gomes dos Santos
TL;DR

but i believe you will appreciate this screenshots
i have used zabbix to collect metrics and generate alerts, and used grafana like a passive artemis dashboard.

Basically grafana use zabbix like a data store via api.

i have plan to write a article about how do that soon







2016-10-07 19:54 GMT-03:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:
a consolidated repo for AMQ and Artemis might be useful for other
stuff as well. not just the web console.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:49 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think I just saw two great ideas:
>
> - A consolidated web console that is usable by both ActiveMQ and Artemis.
> - It should be an independent repository/utility.
>
> I think all of the discussions are happening on a ML, but realistically if
> we're ready to start writing down some code, we need some of those
> utilities in place.  Since PRs are mirrored to the MLs that would work, but
> I would hate to see it baked into one of the existing repos to make that
> happen.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:41 PM Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I was under the impression that all Apache development discussions occur on
>> the email list. This is for legal and policy reasons. Please correct me if
>> I'm wrong.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016, 9:43 AM Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I think this is pretty straightforward:
>> >
>> > i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both
>> > Artemis and ActiveMQ
>> >
>> > ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some metrics...
>> >
>> >
>> > iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the code.
>> >
>> >
>> > The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request..
>> > someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical**
>> > discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then
>> > collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a
>> > request I am making here, probably the third time... lets CTRL-Alt-Del
>> > and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see everybody
>> > with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks
>> > like an Apache project, pretty and neat.
>> >
>> >
>> > Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from there.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is it
>> > > intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network of
>> > brokers?
>> > > Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it rely on
>> > JMX
>> > > or something else?
>> > >
>> > > Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something that's
>> > available
>> > > or some other solution.
>> > >
>> > > The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again for
>> > > something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go
>> > anywhere.
>> > >
>> > > My $0.02,
>> > > Hadrian
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> +1 on improving/adding a console.  Providing a console out of the box
>> > is a
>> > >> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel Artemis
>> > >> would
>> > >> greatly benefit from.  Whether it's HawtIO or something else we should
>> > >> make
>> > >> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic
>> > >> <[hidden email]>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > >>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> @Hiram
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top right
>> > >>>
>> > >>> corner).
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects. Learn
>> more
>> > >>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:"
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>  No other implications from what I see.
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>> >
>>



--
Clebert Suconic



--
Fábio Santos
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

clebertsuconic
I don't think the attachments com through dev list.
I don't see an attachment at least.

Probably better to provide a link somewhere ?



On Friday, October 7, 2016, Fabio Gomes dos Santos <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> TL;DR
>
> but i believe you will appreciate this screenshots
> i have used zabbix to collect metrics and generate alerts, and used
> grafana like a passive artemis dashboard.
>
> Basically grafana use zabbix like a data store via api.
>
> i have plan to write a article about how do that soon
>
>
>
> ​
>
>
>
> 2016-10-07 19:54 GMT-03:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>:
>
>> a consolidated repo for AMQ and Artemis might be useful for other
>> stuff as well. not just the web console.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:49 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>> wrote:
>> > I think I just saw two great ideas:
>> >
>> > - A consolidated web console that is usable by both ActiveMQ and
>> Artemis.
>> > - It should be an independent repository/utility.
>> >
>> > I think all of the discussions are happening on a ML, but realistically
>> if
>> > we're ready to start writing down some code, we need some of those
>> > utilities in place.  Since PRs are mirrored to the MLs that would work,
>> but
>> > I would hate to see it baked into one of the existing repos to make that
>> > happen.
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:41 PM Jim Gomes <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I was under the impression that all Apache development discussions
>> occur on
>> >> the email list. This is for legal and policy reasons. Please correct
>> me if
>> >> I'm wrong.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016, 9:43 AM Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I think this is pretty straightforward:
>> >> >
>> >> > i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both
>> >> > Artemis and ActiveMQ
>> >> >
>> >> > ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some metrics...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the
>> code.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request..
>> >> > someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical**
>> >> > discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then
>> >> > collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a
>> >> > request I am making here, probably the third time... lets
>> CTRL-Alt-Del
>> >> > and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see everybody
>> >> > with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks
>> >> > like an Apache project, pretty and neat.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from there.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is
>> it
>> >> > > intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network of
>> >> > brokers?
>> >> > > Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it
>> rely on
>> >> > JMX
>> >> > > or something else?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something that's
>> >> > available
>> >> > > or some other solution.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again
>> for
>> >> > > something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go
>> >> > anywhere.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > My $0.02,
>> >> > > Hadrian
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> +1 on improving/adding a console.  Providing a console out of the
>> box
>> >> > is a
>> >> > >> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel
>> Artemis
>> >> > >> would
>> >> > >> greatly benefit from.  Whether it's HawtIO or something else we
>> should
>> >> > >> make
>> >> > >> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic
>> >> > >> <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>
>> >> > >> wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament <
>> >> [hidden email]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>
>> >> > >>> wrote:
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>> @Hiram
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top
>> right
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> corner).
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following:
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects. Learn
>> >> more
>> >> > >>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:"
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>  No other implications from what I see.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Clebert Suconic
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Fábio Santos
> [hidden email]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>
> <http://br.linkedin.com/pub/f%C3%A1bio-santos/1b/20/422>
>


--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

Fabio Gomes dos Santos
https://postimg.org/image/rd4wygyt7/
https://postimg.org/image/tt6qcbgvv/

2016-10-07 20:36 GMT-03:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:

> I don't think the attachments com through dev list.
> I don't see an attachment at least.
>
> Probably better to provide a link somewhere ?
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 7, 2016, Fabio Gomes dos Santos <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > TL;DR
> >
> > but i believe you will appreciate this screenshots
> > i have used zabbix to collect metrics and generate alerts, and used
> > grafana like a passive artemis dashboard.
> >
> > Basically grafana use zabbix like a data store via api.
> >
> > i have plan to write a article about how do that soon
> >
> >
> >
> > ​
> >
> >
> >
> > 2016-10-07 19:54 GMT-03:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>:
> >
> >> a consolidated repo for AMQ and Artemis might be useful for other
> >> stuff as well. not just the web console.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:49 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>> wrote:
> >> > I think I just saw two great ideas:
> >> >
> >> > - A consolidated web console that is usable by both ActiveMQ and
> >> Artemis.
> >> > - It should be an independent repository/utility.
> >> >
> >> > I think all of the discussions are happening on a ML, but
> realistically
> >> if
> >> > we're ready to start writing down some code, we need some of those
> >> > utilities in place.  Since PRs are mirrored to the MLs that would
> work,
> >> but
> >> > I would hate to see it baked into one of the existing repos to make
> that
> >> > happen.
> >> >
> >> > John
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:41 PM Jim Gomes <[hidden email]
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I was under the impression that all Apache development discussions
> >> occur on
> >> >> the email list. This is for legal and policy reasons. Please correct
> >> me if
> >> >> I'm wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016, 9:43 AM Clebert Suconic <
> >> [hidden email]
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I think this is pretty straightforward:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both
> >> >> > Artemis and ActiveMQ
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some
> metrics...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the
> >> code.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request..
> >> >> > someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical**
> >> >> > discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then
> >> >> > collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a
> >> >> > request I am making here, probably the third time... lets
> >> CTRL-Alt-Del
> >> >> > and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see
> everybody
> >> >> > with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks
> >> >> > like an Apache project, pretty and neat.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from
> there.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <
> [hidden email]
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is
> >> it
> >> >> > > intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network
> of
> >> >> > brokers?
> >> >> > > Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it
> >> rely on
> >> >> > JMX
> >> >> > > or something else?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something
> that's
> >> >> > available
> >> >> > > or some other solution.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again
> >> for
> >> >> > > something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go
> >> >> > anywhere.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > My $0.02,
> >> >> > > Hadrian
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> +1 on improving/adding a console.  Providing a console out of
> the
> >> box
> >> >> > is a
> >> >> > >> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel
> >> Artemis
> >> >> > >> would
> >> >> > >> greatly benefit from.  Whether it's HawtIO or something else we
> >> should
> >> >> > >> make
> >> >> > >> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic
> >> >> > >> <[hidden email]
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>
> >> >> > >> wrote:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament <
> >> >> [hidden email]
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>
> >> >> > >>> wrote:
> >> >> > >>>>
> >> >> > >>>> @Hiram
> >> >> > >>>>
> >> >> > >>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top
> >> right
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> corner).
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following:
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects.
> Learn
> >> >> more
> >> >> > >>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:"
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>  No other implications from what I see.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Clebert Suconic
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Fábio Santos
> > [hidden email]
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>
> > <http://br.linkedin.com/pub/f%C3%A1bio-santos/1b/20/422>
> >
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>



--
Fábio Santos
[hidden email]
<http://br.linkedin.com/pub/f%C3%A1bio-santos/1b/20/422>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

Jim Gomes
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
Got it. I haven't used pull requests before, but that sounds great to me if
others will find it a better workflow. Will those who don't use git be able
to participate through the mail list interface? Some systems gave that kind
of ability.


On Fri, Oct 7, 2016, 3:29 PM Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I was under the impression that all Apache development discussions occur
> on
> > the email list.
>
> As Justin Bertram Said, all PR comments are sent to the dev-list.
>
> What I'm really proposing, it's to be practical... to have something
> concrete to talk about on top of the code.
>
>
>
>  Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I think this is pretty straightforward:
> >>
> >> i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both
> >> Artemis and ActiveMQ
> >>
> >> ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some metrics...
> >>
> >>
> >> iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the code.
> >>
> >>
> >> The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request..
> >> someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical**
> >> discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then
> >> collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a
> >> request I am making here, probably the third time... lets CTRL-Alt-Del
> >> and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see everybody
> >> with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks
> >> like an Apache project, pretty and neat.
> >>
> >>
> >> Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from there.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is it
> >> > intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network of
> >> brokers?
> >> > Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it rely on
> >> JMX
> >> > or something else?
> >> >
> >> > Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something that's
> >> available
> >> > or some other solution.
> >> >
> >> > The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again for
> >> > something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go
> >> anywhere.
> >> >
> >> > My $0.02,
> >> > Hadrian
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> +1 on improving/adding a console.  Providing a console out of the box
> >> is a
> >> >> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel Artemis
> >> >> would
> >> >> greatly benefit from.  Whether it's HawtIO or something else we
> should
> >> >> make
> >> >> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic
> >> >> <[hidden email]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament <
> [hidden email]>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> @Hiram
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top right
> >> >>>
> >> >>> corner).
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects. Learn
> more
> >> >>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:"
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>  No other implications from what I see.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by Fabio Gomes dos Santos
WOW... nice graphs!!!! It would be great to have those as part of the
codebase somehow. What you guys think?

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Fabio Gomes dos Santos
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> https://postimg.org/image/rd4wygyt7/
> https://postimg.org/image/tt6qcbgvv/
>
> 2016-10-07 20:36 GMT-03:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:
>
>> I don't think the attachments com through dev list.
>> I don't see an attachment at least.
>>
>> Probably better to provide a link somewhere ?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, October 7, 2016, Fabio Gomes dos Santos <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > TL;DR
>> >
>> > but i believe you will appreciate this screenshots
>> > i have used zabbix to collect metrics and generate alerts, and used
>> > grafana like a passive artemis dashboard.
>> >
>> > Basically grafana use zabbix like a data store via api.
>> >
>> > i have plan to write a article about how do that soon
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2016-10-07 19:54 GMT-03:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]
>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>:
>> >
>> >> a consolidated repo for AMQ and Artemis might be useful for other
>> >> stuff as well. not just the web console.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:49 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>> wrote:
>> >> > I think I just saw two great ideas:
>> >> >
>> >> > - A consolidated web console that is usable by both ActiveMQ and
>> >> Artemis.
>> >> > - It should be an independent repository/utility.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think all of the discussions are happening on a ML, but
>> realistically
>> >> if
>> >> > we're ready to start writing down some code, we need some of those
>> >> > utilities in place.  Since PRs are mirrored to the MLs that would
>> work,
>> >> but
>> >> > I would hate to see it baked into one of the existing repos to make
>> that
>> >> > happen.
>> >> >
>> >> > John
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:41 PM Jim Gomes <[hidden email]
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I was under the impression that all Apache development discussions
>> >> occur on
>> >> >> the email list. This is for legal and policy reasons. Please correct
>> >> me if
>> >> >> I'm wrong.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016, 9:43 AM Clebert Suconic <
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think this is pretty straightforward:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both
>> >> >> > Artemis and ActiveMQ
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some
>> metrics...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the
>> >> code.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request..
>> >> >> > someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical**
>> >> >> > discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then
>> >> >> > collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a
>> >> >> > request I am making here, probably the third time... lets
>> >> CTRL-Alt-Del
>> >> >> > and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see
>> everybody
>> >> >> > with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks
>> >> >> > like an Apache project, pretty and neat.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from
>> there.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <
>> [hidden email]
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> > > I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is
>> >> it
>> >> >> > > intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network
>> of
>> >> >> > brokers?
>> >> >> > > Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it
>> >> rely on
>> >> >> > JMX
>> >> >> > > or something else?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something
>> that's
>> >> >> > available
>> >> >> > > or some other solution.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again
>> >> for
>> >> >> > > something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go
>> >> >> > anywhere.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > My $0.02,
>> >> >> > > Hadrian
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> +1 on improving/adding a console.  Providing a console out of
>> the
>> >> box
>> >> >> > is a
>> >> >> > >> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel
>> >> Artemis
>> >> >> > >> would
>> >> >> > >> greatly benefit from.  Whether it's HawtIO or something else we
>> >> should
>> >> >> > >> make
>> >> >> > >> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis.
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic
>> >> >> > >> <[hidden email]
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>
>> >> >> > >> wrote:
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament <
>> >> >> [hidden email]
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>>
>> >> >> > >>> wrote:
>> >> >> > >>>>
>> >> >> > >>>> @Hiram
>> >> >> > >>>>
>> >> >> > >>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top
>> >> right
>> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> > >>> corner).
>> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> > >>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following:
>> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> > >>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects.
>> Learn
>> >> >> more
>> >> >> > >>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:"
>> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> > >>>  No other implications from what I see.
>> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > Clebert Suconic
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Clebert Suconic
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Fábio Santos
>> > [hidden email]
>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>
>> > <http://br.linkedin.com/pub/f%C3%A1bio-santos/1b/20/422>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Fábio Santos
> [hidden email]
> <http://br.linkedin.com/pub/f%C3%A1bio-santos/1b/20/422>



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

Krzysztof Sobkowiak
In reply to this post by dkulp
+1

I think starting with a separate repo is a good idea. Probably it would make sense to start a new Apache project which provides  a generic console and ActiveMQ, Artemis and other projects (like Camel, Karaf,...) could provide plugins for this. But instead of creating a new project, we can start with a separate repo in ActiveMQ project and, when it's successful,  we can extract the generic part into a separate project. We must only design and develop this console to be generic already at the beginning.

Jolokia + JMX is a good idea and the console could provide some generic code for the plugins to make the implementation simply. But it should be up to the concrete plugin, how it will communicate with it's component.

Regards
Krzysztof


On 08.10.2016 00:05, Daniel Kulp wrote:

> I guess the first question that needs to be determined is if this will be done in the Artemis git repo or if we should create a new repo for this (so it could be shared for both 5.x and Artemis).   If a new repo, then just get the repo created and start committing code.   Don’t bother with the pull request, just start working on it and continue discussing it here.
>
> From my standpoint, I’m quite OK with a separate repo.  
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I think this is pretty straightforward:
>>
>> i - it should relay on JMX or jolokia.. A common thing between both
>> Artemis and ActiveMQ
>>
>> ii - it should manage at least a single broker.. with some metrics...
>>
>>
>> iii - anything beyond that will just be a collaboration over the code.
>>
>>
>> The best way to discuss this IMO would be through a Pull Request..
>> someone send an initial draft.. we can have some **technical**
>> discussion over of PR, and commit it as version 1... then
>> collaboratively this could be increased just as with anything else.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we are clear from the previous discussions... and that's a
>> request I am making here, probably the third time... lets CTRL-Alt-Del
>> and start fresh... The issues we had are clear... and I see everybody
>> with a single goal here.. to have an integrated console that looks
>> like an Apache project, pretty and neat.
>>
>>
>> Once someone put a first version, we can only improve it from there.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I would suggest discussing the goals for such a console first. Is it
>>> intended to monitory just one broker instance or a whole network of brokers?
>>> Should it manage just the brokers or other services? Should it rely on JMX
>>> or something else?
>>>
>>> Then one can think about reusing and/or improving something that's available
>>> or some other solution.
>>>
>>> The way this discuss goes, sounds to me like trying to push again for
>>> something that was rejected in the past and I suspect will not go anywhere.
>>>
>>> My $0.02,
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/07/2016 06:41 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>> +1 on improving/adding a console.  Providing a console out of the box is a
>>>> massive win for user experience imo and something that I feel Artemis
>>>> would
>>>> greatly benefit from.  Whether it's HawtIO or something else we should
>>>> make
>>>> every effort to standardise across both 5.x and Artemis.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> @Hiram
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The website branding says otherwise (take a look at the top right
>>>>> corner).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That symbol on the top is just a link to the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Like hawtio? It’s part of a community of Red Hat projects. Learn more
>>>>> about Red Hat and our open source communities:"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No other implications from what I see.
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic

--
Krzysztof Sobkowiak (@ksobkowiak)

JEE & OSS Architect, Integration Architect
Apache Software Foundation Member (http://apache.org/)
Apache ServiceMix Committer & PMC Member (http://servicemix.apache.org/)
Senior Solution Architect @ Capgemini SSC (http://www.capgeminisoftware.pl/)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

MichaelAndrePearce
In reply to this post by Martyn Taylor
Hi Guys,

It's been some time since this discussion thread without seemingly any movement.

Artemis Project is really suffering from having any kind of management console. With continued questions and calls from users especially as it's picking up traction and deployment.

As such could I propose, that as lack of movement on any other solution and Hawtio is pretty much in a usable state, with a plugin also out there in the wild. (It's ASL)

That for the interim on artemis project we build and release with Hawtio and an artemis plugin (if RH would donate their plugin to artemis project?)

Any objectors?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

W B D
I've been using hawtio alongside the classic web console in ActiveMQ 5.x
and have been quite happy with it. I find it easier to use for many common
operations as well as for general monitoring, and it is definitely a gap in
the current Artemis distribution, so I would certainly welcome built-in
hawtio support as a good addition.

Although the source code already contains the standard license assignment
to ASF, it does not include a NOTICE file. We could ask Redhat for one, or
construct one crediting them with the original work, or add a stanza to the
top-level NOTICE file if that is more appropriate. IMO, the package and
class name org.jboss.plugin.PluginContextListener could probably be changed
in our copy, both to establish custody and to give a clearer name.

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, MichaelAndrePearce <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> It's been some time since this discussion thread without seemingly any
> movement.
>
> Artemis Project is really suffering from having any kind of management
> console. With continued questions and calls from users especially as it's
> picking up traction and deployment.
>
> As such could I propose, that as lack of movement on any other solution and
> Hawtio is pretty much in a usable state, with a plugin also out there in
> the
> wild. (It's ASL)
>
> That for the interim on artemis project we build and release with Hawtio
> and
> an artemis plugin (if RH would donate their plugin to artemis project?)
>
> Any objectors?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-tp4717136p4728020.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

MichaelAndrePearce
I don't think this is a blocker, for example artemis uses jboss logging, this doesn't have a notice file

I think we just have to preserve them if present and for asf projects themselves eg artemis itself it's policy to provide one for the asf work.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Jun 2017, at 01:09, W B D <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I've been using hawtio alongside the classic web console in ActiveMQ 5.x
> and have been quite happy with it. I find it easier to use for many common
> operations as well as for general monitoring, and it is definitely a gap in
> the current Artemis distribution, so I would certainly welcome built-in
> hawtio support as a good addition.
>
> Although the source code already contains the standard license assignment
> to ASF, it does not include a NOTICE file. We could ask Redhat for one, or
> construct one crediting them with the original work, or add a stanza to the
> top-level NOTICE file if that is more appropriate. IMO, the package and
> class name org.jboss.plugin.PluginContextListener could probably be changed
> in our copy, both to establish custody and to give a clearer name.
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, MichaelAndrePearce <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> It's been some time since this discussion thread without seemingly any
>> movement.
>>
>> Artemis Project is really suffering from having any kind of management
>> console. With continued questions and calls from users especially as it's
>> picking up traction and deployment.
>>
>> As such could I propose, that as lack of movement on any other solution and
>> Hawtio is pretty much in a usable state, with a plugin also out there in
>> the
>> wild. (It's ASL)
>>
>> That for the interim on artemis project we build and release with Hawtio
>> and
>> an artemis plugin (if RH would donate their plugin to artemis project?)
>>
>> Any objectors?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-tp4717136p4728020.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

clebertsuconic
Speaking the plain truth... The issue is that the hawtio console that
was used years ago.. looked like a commercial product outside of
apache

I think that if we clear that now.. if it looks an apache look &
feel.. people wouldn't have an issue with it.


That would require some cleanup.. move to a newer hawtio plugin maybe?
that's when we thought about trying new routes if we would need to do
a lot of work anyways.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Michael André Pearce
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't think this is a blocker, for example artemis uses jboss logging, this doesn't have a notice file
>
> I think we just have to preserve them if present and for asf projects themselves eg artemis itself it's policy to provide one for the asf work.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 01:09, W B D <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I've been using hawtio alongside the classic web console in ActiveMQ 5.x
>> and have been quite happy with it. I find it easier to use for many common
>> operations as well as for general monitoring, and it is definitely a gap in
>> the current Artemis distribution, so I would certainly welcome built-in
>> hawtio support as a good addition.
>>
>> Although the source code already contains the standard license assignment
>> to ASF, it does not include a NOTICE file. We could ask Redhat for one, or
>> construct one crediting them with the original work, or add a stanza to the
>> top-level NOTICE file if that is more appropriate. IMO, the package and
>> class name org.jboss.plugin.PluginContextListener could probably be changed
>> in our copy, both to establish custody and to give a clearer name.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, MichaelAndrePearce <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> It's been some time since this discussion thread without seemingly any
>>> movement.
>>>
>>> Artemis Project is really suffering from having any kind of management
>>> console. With continued questions and calls from users especially as it's
>>> picking up traction and deployment.
>>>
>>> As such could I propose, that as lack of movement on any other solution and
>>> Hawtio is pretty much in a usable state, with a plugin also out there in
>>> the
>>> wild. (It's ASL)
>>>
>>> That for the interim on artemis project we build and release with Hawtio
>>> and
>>> an artemis plugin (if RH would donate their plugin to artemis project?)
>>>
>>> Any objectors?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-tp4717136p4728020.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

MichaelAndrePearce
I believe we could make a simple activemq branding jar/war with the selected new logo ;) once decided without too much trouble.

I'd be happy to step up to try do this if no objectors.

> On 29 Jun 2017, at 16:51, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Speaking the plain truth... The issue is that the hawtio console that
> was used years ago.. looked like a commercial product outside of
> apache
>
> I think that if we clear that now.. if it looks an apache look &
> feel.. people wouldn't have an issue with it.
>
>
> That would require some cleanup.. move to a newer hawtio plugin maybe?
> that's when we thought about trying new routes if we would need to do
> a lot of work anyways.
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Michael André Pearce
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I don't think this is a blocker, for example artemis uses jboss logging, this doesn't have a notice file
>>
>> I think we just have to preserve them if present and for asf projects themselves eg artemis itself it's policy to provide one for the asf work.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 01:09, W B D <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been using hawtio alongside the classic web console in ActiveMQ 5.x
>>> and have been quite happy with it. I find it easier to use for many common
>>> operations as well as for general monitoring, and it is definitely a gap in
>>> the current Artemis distribution, so I would certainly welcome built-in
>>> hawtio support as a good addition.
>>>
>>> Although the source code already contains the standard license assignment
>>> to ASF, it does not include a NOTICE file. We could ask Redhat for one, or
>>> construct one crediting them with the original work, or add a stanza to the
>>> top-level NOTICE file if that is more appropriate. IMO, the package and
>>> class name org.jboss.plugin.PluginContextListener could probably be changed
>>> in our copy, both to establish custody and to give a clearer name.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, MichaelAndrePearce <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>
>>>> It's been some time since this discussion thread without seemingly any
>>>> movement.
>>>>
>>>> Artemis Project is really suffering from having any kind of management
>>>> console. With continued questions and calls from users especially as it's
>>>> picking up traction and deployment.
>>>>
>>>> As such could I propose, that as lack of movement on any other solution and
>>>> Hawtio is pretty much in a usable state, with a plugin also out there in
>>>> the
>>>> wild. (It's ASL)
>>>>
>>>> That for the interim on artemis project we build and release with Hawtio
>>>> and
>>>> an artemis plugin (if RH would donate their plugin to artemis project?)
>>>>
>>>> Any objectors?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-tp4717136p4728020.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

dkulp

> On Jun 29, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Michael André Pearce <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I believe we could make a simple activemq branding jar/war with the selected new logo ;) once decided without too much trouble.
>
> I'd be happy to step up to try do this if no objectors.

I discussed previously, what would NEED to be done for this to be “acceptable”:

1) All branding/links/etc… in the console need to be re-skinned or whatever to be “ActiveMQ”.  All mentions of hawtio and links off to other sites other than a possible small “powered by” type thing would need to be removed.  

2) All “plugins” and functionality that don’t pertain to things related to ActiveMQ would need to be removed.

3) The “plugin" that presents ActiveMQ related stuff to the user MUST live here at Apache and part of the ActiveMQ community.   We cannot use the one they provide (unless you can convince them to donate it to Apache).

Unless all three happen, it’s a no-go.

Dan


>
>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 16:51, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Speaking the plain truth... The issue is that the hawtio console that
>> was used years ago.. looked like a commercial product outside of
>> apache
>>
>> I think that if we clear that now.. if it looks an apache look &
>> feel.. people wouldn't have an issue with it.
>>
>>
>> That would require some cleanup.. move to a newer hawtio plugin maybe?
>> that's when we thought about trying new routes if we would need to do
>> a lot of work anyways.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Michael André Pearce
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I don't think this is a blocker, for example artemis uses jboss logging, this doesn't have a notice file
>>>
>>> I think we just have to preserve them if present and for asf projects themselves eg artemis itself it's policy to provide one for the asf work.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 01:09, W B D <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've been using hawtio alongside the classic web console in ActiveMQ 5.x
>>>> and have been quite happy with it. I find it easier to use for many common
>>>> operations as well as for general monitoring, and it is definitely a gap in
>>>> the current Artemis distribution, so I would certainly welcome built-in
>>>> hawtio support as a good addition.
>>>>
>>>> Although the source code already contains the standard license assignment
>>>> to ASF, it does not include a NOTICE file. We could ask Redhat for one, or
>>>> construct one crediting them with the original work, or add a stanza to the
>>>> top-level NOTICE file if that is more appropriate. IMO, the package and
>>>> class name org.jboss.plugin.PluginContextListener could probably be changed
>>>> in our copy, both to establish custody and to give a clearer name.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, MichaelAndrePearce <
>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been some time since this discussion thread without seemingly any
>>>>> movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Artemis Project is really suffering from having any kind of management
>>>>> console. With continued questions and calls from users especially as it's
>>>>> picking up traction and deployment.
>>>>>
>>>>> As such could I propose, that as lack of movement on any other solution and
>>>>> Hawtio is pretty much in a usable state, with a plugin also out there in
>>>>> the
>>>>> wild. (It's ASL)
>>>>>
>>>>> That for the interim on artemis project we build and release with Hawtio
>>>>> and
>>>>> an artemis plugin (if RH would donate their plugin to artemis project?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Any objectors?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-tp4717136p4728020.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic

--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

artnaseef
I just saw this thread; haven't read the entire history, so I apologize for any misperceptions.

Here are some fundamental requirements for the Web Console that I feel strongly must be met:
  • ActiveMQ must have a built-in web console that requires minimal/no configuration to enable
  • This web console must come out-of-the-box with the broker
  • This web console must be easily kept up-to-date with broker changes
  • Functionality that must be present (parity with existing console):
    • View the list of queues and basic status (number of messages on the queue, total enqueue count, total dequeue count, consumer count, ...)
    • View the list of topics and basic status (number of enqueues and dequeues, subscriber count, ...)
    • View the list of durable topic subscriptions and basic status (number of messages in the subscription, ...)
    • Current connections to the broker
    • and more

As for any ideas around providing a common web tool to manage ActiveMQ and Artemis, those are great, but the built-in web console is a must-have.  The amount of use the web console gets, it's immediate out-of-the-box value, and ease-of-use when assisting others are all very valuable.

Art



On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:00 AM, dkulp [via ActiveMQ] <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Jun 29, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Michael André Pearce <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I believe we could make a simple activemq branding jar/war with the selected new logo ;) once decided without too much trouble.
>
> I'd be happy to step up to try do this if no objectors.

I discussed previously, what would NEED to be done for this to be “acceptable”:

1) All branding/links/etc… in the console need to be re-skinned or whatever to be “ActiveMQ”.  All mentions of hawtio and links off to other sites other than a possible small “powered by” type thing would need to be removed.  

2) All “plugins” and functionality that don’t pertain to things related to ActiveMQ would need to be removed.

3) The “plugin" that presents ActiveMQ related stuff to the user MUST live here at Apache and part of the ActiveMQ community.   We cannot use the one they provide (unless you can convince them to donate it to Apache).

Unless all three happen, it’s a no-go.

Dan


>
>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 16:51, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Speaking the plain truth... The issue is that the hawtio console that
>> was used years ago.. looked like a commercial product outside of
>> apache
>>
>> I think that if we clear that now.. if it looks an apache look &
>> feel.. people wouldn't have an issue with it.
>>
>>
>> That would require some cleanup.. move to a newer hawtio plugin maybe?
>> that's when we thought about trying new routes if we would need to do
>> a lot of work anyways.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Michael André Pearce
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I don't think this is a blocker, for example artemis uses jboss logging, this doesn't have a notice file
>>>
>>> I think we just have to preserve them if present and for asf projects themselves eg artemis itself it's policy to provide one for the asf work.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 01:09, W B D <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've been using hawtio alongside the classic web console in ActiveMQ 5.x
>>>> and have been quite happy with it. I find it easier to use for many common
>>>> operations as well as for general monitoring, and it is definitely a gap in
>>>> the current Artemis distribution, so I would certainly welcome built-in
>>>> hawtio support as a good addition.
>>>>
>>>> Although the source code already contains the standard license assignment
>>>> to ASF, it does not include a NOTICE file. We could ask Redhat for one, or
>>>> construct one crediting them with the original work, or add a stanza to the
>>>> top-level NOTICE file if that is more appropriate. IMO, the package and
>>>> class name org.jboss.plugin.PluginContextListener could probably be changed
>>>> in our copy, both to establish custody and to give a clearer name.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, MichaelAndrePearce <
>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been some time since this discussion thread without seemingly any
>>>>> movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Artemis Project is really suffering from having any kind of management
>>>>> console. With continued questions and calls from users especially as it's
>>>>> picking up traction and deployment.
>>>>>
>>>>> As such could I propose, that as lack of movement on any other solution and
>>>>> Hawtio is pretty much in a usable state, with a plugin also out there in
>>>>> the
>>>>> wild. (It's ASL)
>>>>>
>>>>> That for the interim on artemis project we build and release with Hawtio
>>>>> and
>>>>> an artemis plugin (if RH would donate their plugin to artemis project?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Any objectors?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-tp4717136p4728020.html
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com




If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-tp4717136p4728078.html
To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ - Dev, click here.
NAML

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

MichaelAndrePearce
In reply to this post by dkulp
Ok,

So i think we can do this. From a local build.

Please see screenshots.

 https://gist.github.com/michaelandrepearce/98b4be98d20f407c2d745a41df9cef03 <https://gist.github.com/michaelandrepearce/98b4be98d20f407c2d745a41df9cef03>

For 1) I think we have managed to completely skin it, with all hawtio references removed, even the favicon.
For 2) Only the artemis plugin and base jvm plugins, no extras for any other products.
For 3) Im hoping we can come to agreement on this gets contributed in from the rh-messaging project @clebert @martyn @andy?, if not we can probably code up a simpler version of it for now without bells and whistles, and add in the future features later.

So if we sort point three, i think we can make this “acceptable”

Cheers
Mike

> On 29 Jun 2017, at 19:17, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 29, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Michael André Pearce <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> I believe we could make a simple activemq branding jar/war with the selected new logo ;) once decided without too much trouble.
>>
>> I'd be happy to step up to try do this if no objectors.
>
> I discussed previously, what would NEED to be done for this to be “acceptable”:
>
> 1) All branding/links/etc… in the console need to be re-skinned or whatever to be “ActiveMQ”.  All mentions of hawtio and links off to other sites other than a possible small “powered by” type thing would need to be removed.  
>
> 2) All “plugins” and functionality that don’t pertain to things related to ActiveMQ would need to be removed.
>
> 3) The “plugin" that presents ActiveMQ related stuff to the user MUST live here at Apache and part of the ActiveMQ community.   We cannot use the one they provide (unless you can convince them to donate it to Apache).
>
> Unless all three happen, it’s a no-go.
>
> Dan
>
>
>>
>>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 16:51, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Speaking the plain truth... The issue is that the hawtio console that
>>> was used years ago.. looked like a commercial product outside of
>>> apache
>>>
>>> I think that if we clear that now.. if it looks an apache look &
>>> feel.. people wouldn't have an issue with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> That would require some cleanup.. move to a newer hawtio plugin maybe?
>>> that's when we thought about trying new routes if we would need to do
>>> a lot of work anyways.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Michael André Pearce
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> I don't think this is a blocker, for example artemis uses jboss logging, this doesn't have a notice file
>>>>
>>>> I think we just have to preserve them if present and for asf projects themselves eg artemis itself it's policy to provide one for the asf work.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 01:09, W B D <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been using hawtio alongside the classic web console in ActiveMQ 5.x
>>>>> and have been quite happy with it. I find it easier to use for many common
>>>>> operations as well as for general monitoring, and it is definitely a gap in
>>>>> the current Artemis distribution, so I would certainly welcome built-in
>>>>> hawtio support as a good addition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although the source code already contains the standard license assignment
>>>>> to ASF, it does not include a NOTICE file. We could ask Redhat for one, or
>>>>> construct one crediting them with the original work, or add a stanza to the
>>>>> top-level NOTICE file if that is more appropriate. IMO, the package and
>>>>> class name org.jboss.plugin.PluginContextListener could probably be changed
>>>>> in our copy, both to establish custody and to give a clearer name.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, MichaelAndrePearce <
>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been some time since this discussion thread without seemingly any
>>>>>> movement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Artemis Project is really suffering from having any kind of management
>>>>>> console. With continued questions and calls from users especially as it's
>>>>>> picking up traction and deployment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As such could I propose, that as lack of movement on any other solution and
>>>>>> Hawtio is pretty much in a usable state, with a plugin also out there in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> wild. (It's ASL)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That for the interim on artemis project we build and release with Hawtio
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> an artemis plugin (if RH would donate their plugin to artemis project?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any objectors?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-tp4717136p4728020.html
>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> - http://dankulp.com/blog <http://dankulp.com/blog>
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com <http://coders.talend.com/>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the Web Console

Martyn Taylor
Michael,

If people think this is the way to go then I can't see there being any
problem with 3).

Cheers

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Michael André Pearce <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ok,
>
> So i think we can do this. From a local build.
>
> Please see screenshots.
>
>  https://gist.github.com/michaelandrepearce/98b4be98d20f407c2d745a41df9cef
> 03 <https://gist.github.com/michaelandrepearce/
> 98b4be98d20f407c2d745a41df9cef03>
>
> For 1) I think we have managed to completely skin it, with all hawtio
> references removed, even the favicon.
> For 2) Only the artemis plugin and base jvm plugins, no extras for any
> other products.
> For 3) Im hoping we can come to agreement on this gets contributed in from
> the rh-messaging project @clebert @martyn @andy?, if not we can probably
> code up a simpler version of it for now without bells and whistles, and add
> in the future features later.
>
> So if we sort point three, i think we can make this “acceptable”
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
> > On 29 Jun 2017, at 19:17, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jun 29, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Michael André Pearce <
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I believe we could make a simple activemq branding jar/war with the
> selected new logo ;) once decided without too much trouble.
> >>
> >> I'd be happy to step up to try do this if no objectors.
> >
> > I discussed previously, what would NEED to be done for this to be
> “acceptable”:
> >
> > 1) All branding/links/etc… in the console need to be re-skinned or
> whatever to be “ActiveMQ”.  All mentions of hawtio and links off to other
> sites other than a possible small “powered by” type thing would need to be
> removed.
> >
> > 2) All “plugins” and functionality that don’t pertain to things related
> to ActiveMQ would need to be removed.
> >
> > 3) The “plugin" that presents ActiveMQ related stuff to the user MUST
> live here at Apache and part of the ActiveMQ community.   We cannot use the
> one they provide (unless you can convince them to donate it to Apache).
> >
> > Unless all three happen, it’s a no-go.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 16:51, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Speaking the plain truth... The issue is that the hawtio console that
> >>> was used years ago.. looked like a commercial product outside of
> >>> apache
> >>>
> >>> I think that if we clear that now.. if it looks an apache look &
> >>> feel.. people wouldn't have an issue with it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That would require some cleanup.. move to a newer hawtio plugin maybe?
> >>> that's when we thought about trying new routes if we would need to do
> >>> a lot of work anyways.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Michael André Pearce
> >>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>> I don't think this is a blocker, for example artemis uses jboss
> logging, this doesn't have a notice file
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we just have to preserve them if present and for asf projects
> themselves eg artemis itself it's policy to provide one for the asf work.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 01:09, W B D <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've been using hawtio alongside the classic web console in ActiveMQ
> 5.x
> >>>>> and have been quite happy with it. I find it easier to use for many
> common
> >>>>> operations as well as for general monitoring, and it is definitely a
> gap in
> >>>>> the current Artemis distribution, so I would certainly welcome
> built-in
> >>>>> hawtio support as a good addition.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Although the source code already contains the standard license
> assignment
> >>>>> to ASF, it does not include a NOTICE file. We could ask Redhat for
> one, or
> >>>>> construct one crediting them with the original work, or add a stanza
> to the
> >>>>> top-level NOTICE file if that is more appropriate. IMO, the package
> and
> >>>>> class name org.jboss.plugin.PluginContextListener could probably be
> changed
> >>>>> in our copy, both to establish custody and to give a clearer name.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, MichaelAndrePearce <
> >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Guys,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's been some time since this discussion thread without seemingly
> any
> >>>>>> movement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Artemis Project is really suffering from having any kind of
> management
> >>>>>> console. With continued questions and calls from users especially
> as it's
> >>>>>> picking up traction and deployment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As such could I propose, that as lack of movement on any other
> solution and
> >>>>>> Hawtio is pretty much in a usable state, with a plugin also out
> there in
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> wild. (It's ASL)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That for the interim on artemis project we build and release with
> Hawtio
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> an artemis plugin (if RH would donate their plugin to artemis
> project?)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any objectors?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> >>>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-tp4717136p4728020.html
> >>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Clebert Suconic
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> - http://dankulp.com/blog <
> http://dankulp.com/blog>
> > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com <
> http://coders.talend.com/>
>
123