[DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

MichaelAndrePearce
Hi All,

I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner, and to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the subject)

The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users (including myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management console (a small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and so becomes more and more pressing to resolve.

http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html>
https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker <https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker>
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis>


Based off the discussion here:

http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199>

We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but a small summary of noted in the above thread):

Must be ActiveMQ Branded
No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart from a powered by.
Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed
Provide functionality to manage the broker
This should be able to expand over time
License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
The war size should be kept to a minimum
Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users
Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in ActiveMQ Artemis project.

Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the missing bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks to Dan, Clebert, Martyn).

We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a web console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis.

As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to bring your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review comments there.

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 <https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385>

Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this, so that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a built usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this into the next release.

We propose:
We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming week.
We will then subsequently look to merge and release another version of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean release with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost immediately after.

I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns.

This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio project. I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and simply see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable web management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and maintenance as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community.

Many thanks
Mike
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

clebertsuconic
I will wait others to chime in, but Michael have done a very nice job
here.. I think this is pretty much ready to be merged...

I will wait the release that I'm doing this week (should be done
already.. fixing a few last issues as usual)... but other than that..
I think this has addressed all the issues raised by Dan on the Pull
Request.. as Michael.



On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael André Pearce
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner, and to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the subject)
>
> The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users (including myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management console (a small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and so becomes more and more pressing to resolve.
>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html>
> https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker <https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis>
>
>
> Based off the discussion here:
>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199>
>
> We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but a small summary of noted in the above thread):
>
> Must be ActiveMQ Branded
> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart from a powered by.
> Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed
> Provide functionality to manage the broker
> This should be able to expand over time
> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
> The war size should be kept to a minimum
> Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users
> Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in ActiveMQ Artemis project.
>
> Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the missing bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks to Dan, Clebert, Martyn).
>
> We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a web console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis.
>
> As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to bring your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review comments there.
>
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 <https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385>
>
> Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this, so that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a built usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this into the next release.
>
> We propose:
> We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming week.
> We will then subsequently look to merge and release another version of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean release with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost immediately after.
>
> I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns.
>
> This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio project. I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and simply see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable web management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and maintenance as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community.
>
> Many thanks
> Mike



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by MichaelAndrePearce
I am tempted to merge it now actually....

Anyone opposed to this? it would be cool to have a console on this
next release.. if it's all good.

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael André Pearce
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner, and to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the subject)
>
> The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users (including myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management console (a small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and so becomes more and more pressing to resolve.
>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html>
> https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker <https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis>
>
>
> Based off the discussion here:
>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199>
>
> We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but a small summary of noted in the above thread):
>
> Must be ActiveMQ Branded
> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart from a powered by.
> Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed
> Provide functionality to manage the broker
> This should be able to expand over time
> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
> The war size should be kept to a minimum
> Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users
> Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in ActiveMQ Artemis project.
>
> Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the missing bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks to Dan, Clebert, Martyn).
>
> We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a web console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis.
>
> As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to bring your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review comments there.
>
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 <https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385>
>
> Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this, so that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a built usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this into the next release.
>
> We propose:
> We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming week.
> We will then subsequently look to merge and release another version of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean release with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost immediately after.
>
> I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns.
>
> This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio project. I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and simply see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable web management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and maintenance as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community.
>
> Many thanks
> Mike



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

tabish121@gmail.com
On 07/13/2017 12:10 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> I am tempted to merge it now actually....
>
> Anyone opposed to this? it would be cool to have a console on this
> next release.. if it's all good.

Please stick to the original plan.  I guessing there's other folks like
myself who haven't had time to even look at this new console yet.

>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael André Pearce
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner, and to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the subject)
>>
>> The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users (including myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management console (a small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and so becomes more and more pressing to resolve.
>>
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html>
>> https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker <https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker>
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis>
>>
>>
>> Based off the discussion here:
>>
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199>
>>
>> We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but a small summary of noted in the above thread):
>>
>> Must be ActiveMQ Branded
>> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart from a powered by.
>> Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed
>> Provide functionality to manage the broker
>> This should be able to expand over time
>> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
>> The war size should be kept to a minimum
>> Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users
>> Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in ActiveMQ Artemis project.
>>
>> Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the missing bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks to Dan, Clebert, Martyn).
>>
>> We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a web console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis.
>>
>> As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to bring your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review comments there.
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 <https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385>
>>
>> Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this, so that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a built usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this into the next release.
>>
>> We propose:
>> We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming week.
>> We will then subsequently look to merge and release another version of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean release with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost immediately after.
>>
>> I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns.
>>
>> This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio project. I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and simply see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable web management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and maintenance as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community.
>>
>> Many thanks
>> Mike
>
>

--
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

MichaelAndrePearce
I would agree, we should stick to the plan.

Merging straight after release and releasing again won't delay in reality the time people can use it. Apart from a few days at most.

 But will address/de risks any concerns.




Sent from my iPhone

> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:23, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 07/13/2017 12:10 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>> I am tempted to merge it now actually....
>>
>> Anyone opposed to this? it would be cool to have a console on this
>> next release.. if it's all good.
>
> Please stick to the original plan.  I guessing there's other folks like myself who haven't had time to even look at this new console yet.
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael André Pearce
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner, and to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the subject)
>>>
>>> The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users (including myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management console (a small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and so becomes more and more pressing to resolve.
>>>
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html>
>>> https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker <https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker>
>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis>
>>>
>>>
>>> Based off the discussion here:
>>>
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199>
>>>
>>> We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but a small summary of noted in the above thread):
>>>
>>> Must be ActiveMQ Branded
>>> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart from a powered by.
>>> Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed
>>> Provide functionality to manage the broker
>>> This should be able to expand over time
>>> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
>>> The war size should be kept to a minimum
>>> Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users
>>> Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in ActiveMQ Artemis project.
>>>
>>> Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the missing bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks to Dan, Clebert, Martyn).
>>>
>>> We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a web console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis.
>>>
>>> As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to bring your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review comments there.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 <https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385>
>>>
>>> Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this, so that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a built usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this into the next release.
>>>
>>> We propose:
>>> We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming week.
>>> We will then subsequently look to merge and release another version of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean release with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost immediately after.
>>>
>>> I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns.
>>>
>>> This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio project. I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and simply see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable web management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and maintenance as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community.
>>>
>>> Many thanks
>>> Mike
>>
>>
>
> --
> Tim Bish
> twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

clebertsuconic
That's fair guys.. I was just tempted to do it.. but won't to it.

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Michael André Pearce
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would agree, we should stick to the plan.
>
> Merging straight after release and releasing again won't delay in reality the time people can use it. Apart from a few days at most.
>
>  But will address/de risks any concerns.
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:23, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/13/2017 12:10 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>> I am tempted to merge it now actually....
>>>
>>> Anyone opposed to this? it would be cool to have a console on this
>>> next release.. if it's all good.
>>
>> Please stick to the original plan.  I guessing there's other folks like myself who haven't had time to even look at this new console yet.
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael André Pearce
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner, and to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the subject)
>>>>
>>>> The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users (including myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management console (a small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and so becomes more and more pressing to resolve.
>>>>
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html>
>>>> https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker <https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker>
>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Based off the discussion here:
>>>>
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199>
>>>>
>>>> We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but a small summary of noted in the above thread):
>>>>
>>>> Must be ActiveMQ Branded
>>>> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart from a powered by.
>>>> Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed
>>>> Provide functionality to manage the broker
>>>> This should be able to expand over time
>>>> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
>>>> The war size should be kept to a minimum
>>>> Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users
>>>> Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in ActiveMQ Artemis project.
>>>>
>>>> Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the missing bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks to Dan, Clebert, Martyn).
>>>>
>>>> We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a web console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis.
>>>>
>>>> As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to bring your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review comments there.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 <https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385>
>>>>
>>>> Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this, so that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a built usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this into the next release.
>>>>
>>>> We propose:
>>>> We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming week.
>>>> We will then subsequently look to merge and release another version of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean release with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost immediately after.
>>>>
>>>> I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns.
>>>>
>>>> This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio project. I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and simply see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable web management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and maintenance as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community.
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Tim Bish
>> twitter: @tabish121
>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

Justin Bertram
I just reviewed the new console via the PR.  I really like it.  Nice work!


Justin

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> That's fair guys.. I was just tempted to do it.. but won't to it.
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Michael André Pearce
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I would agree, we should stick to the plan.
> >
> > Merging straight after release and releasing again won't delay in
> reality the time people can use it. Apart from a few days at most.
> >
> >  But will address/de risks any concerns.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:23, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 07/13/2017 12:10 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> >>> I am tempted to merge it now actually....
> >>>
> >>> Anyone opposed to this? it would be cool to have a console on this
> >>> next release.. if it's all good.
> >>
> >> Please stick to the original plan.  I guessing there's other folks like
> myself who haven't had time to even look at this new console yet.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael André Pearce
> >>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner, and
> to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the subject)
> >>>>
> >>>> The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users (including
> myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management console (a
> small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and so
> becomes more and more pressing to resolve.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-
> artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html>
> >>>> https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/
> 39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker <https://softwarerecs.
> stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-
> for-artemis-jms-broker>
> >>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-
> monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/
> questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Based off the discussion here:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-
> the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 <http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199>
> >>>>
> >>>> We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but a
> small summary of noted in the above thread):
> >>>>
> >>>> Must be ActiveMQ Branded
> >>>> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart
> from a powered by.
> >>>> Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed
> >>>> Provide functionality to manage the broker
> >>>> This should be able to expand over time
> >>>> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
> >>>> The war size should be kept to a minimum
> >>>> Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users
> >>>> Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in
> ActiveMQ Artemis project.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the missing
> bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks to
> Dan, Clebert, Martyn).
> >>>>
> >>>> We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a web
> console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis.
> >>>>
> >>>> As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to bring
> your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review comments
> there.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 <
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385>
> >>>>
> >>>> Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this, so
> that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a built
> usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this into the
> next release.
> >>>>
> >>>> We propose:
> >>>> We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis,
> WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming week.
> >>>> We will then subsequently look to merge and release another version
> of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean release
> with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost
> immediately after.
> >>>>
> >>>> I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra
> release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns.
> >>>>
> >>>> This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to
> iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio project.
> I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and simply
> see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable web
> management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and maintenance
> as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community.
> >>>>
> >>>> Many thanks
> >>>> Mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tim Bish
> >> twitter: @tabish121
> >> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

Martyn Taylor
I've taken some time to review the console.  I don't think we're quite
there yet in terms of meeting all of the goals outlined in the original
email.  However, I don't think we need to hold up merging the PR.
Improvements can be made iteratively.  Couple of comments:

Must be ActiveMQ Branded
   * Met.  Looks good, particularly with the new logo ;).

No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart from a
powered by.
   * I don't see any powered by on the main screens.  We can open a JIRA to
track it once this is merged.

This should be able to expand over time
  * Met. It's extendable.

License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
  * I've been through each source, license and notice file.  Both in this
project and the original project this is imported from.  The original
project was not properly licensed, which caused some concern.  However,
I've sent a PR which was merged.  I think we're all good here.

In summary, I think it's a great first start and something users can use
pretty much straight away.

+1 from me.  Great work Michael.

Thanks


On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I just reviewed the new console via the PR.  I really like it.  Nice work!
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > That's fair guys.. I was just tempted to do it.. but won't to it.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Michael André Pearce
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I would agree, we should stick to the plan.
> > >
> > > Merging straight after release and releasing again won't delay in
> > reality the time people can use it. Apart from a few days at most.
> > >
> > >  But will address/de risks any concerns.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > >> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:23, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 07/13/2017 12:10 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > >>> I am tempted to merge it now actually....
> > >>>
> > >>> Anyone opposed to this? it would be cool to have a console on this
> > >>> next release.. if it's all good.
> > >>
> > >> Please stick to the original plan.  I guessing there's other folks
> like
> > myself who haven't had time to even look at this new console yet.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael André Pearce
> > >>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>> Hi All,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner, and
> > to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the
> subject)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users (including
> > myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management console
> (a
> > small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and so
> > becomes more and more pressing to resolve.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-
> > artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> > nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html>
> > >>>> https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/
> > 39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker <
> https://softwarerecs.
> > stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-
> > for-artemis-jms-broker>
> > >>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-
> > monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/
> > questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Based off the discussion here:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-
> > the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 <http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> > nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but a
> > small summary of noted in the above thread):
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Must be ActiveMQ Branded
> > >>>> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart
> > from a powered by.
> > >>>> Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed
> > >>>> Provide functionality to manage the broker
> > >>>> This should be able to expand over time
> > >>>> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
> > >>>> The war size should be kept to a minimum
> > >>>> Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users
> > >>>> Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in
> > ActiveMQ Artemis project.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the missing
> > bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks to
> > Dan, Clebert, Martyn).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a web
> > console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to bring
> > your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review comments
> > there.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 <
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this, so
> > that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a built
> > usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this into the
> > next release.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We propose:
> > >>>> We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ
> Artemis,
> > WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming week.
> > >>>> We will then subsequently look to merge and release another version
> > of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean release
> > with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost
> > immediately after.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra
> > release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to
> > iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio
> project.
> > I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and
> simply
> > see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable web
> > management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and
> maintenance
> > as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Many thanks
> > >>>> Mike
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Tim Bish
> > >> twitter: @tabish121
> > >> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

Daniel Kulp


> On Jul 27, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart from a
> powered by.
>   * I don't see any powered by on the main screens.  We can open a JIRA to
> track it once this is merged.

It shouldn’t be on the main screen…. There is information on the “About” page (at least last time I looked at it) which is enough.


Dan



>
> This should be able to expand over time
>  * Met. It's extendable.
>
> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
>  * I've been through each source, license and notice file.  Both in this
> project and the original project this is imported from.  The original
> project was not properly licensed, which caused some concern.  However,
> I've sent a PR which was merged.  I think we're all good here.
>
> In summary, I think it's a great first start and something users can use
> pretty much straight away.
>
> +1 from me.  Great work Michael.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I just reviewed the new console via the PR.  I really like it.  Nice work!
>>
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's fair guys.. I was just tempted to do it.. but won't to it.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Michael André Pearce
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> I would agree, we should stick to the plan.
>>>>
>>>> Merging straight after release and releasing again won't delay in
>>> reality the time people can use it. Apart from a few days at most.
>>>>
>>>> But will address/de risks any concerns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:23, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/13/2017 12:10 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>>>>> I am tempted to merge it now actually....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone opposed to this? it would be cool to have a console on this
>>>>>> next release.. if it's all good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please stick to the original plan.  I guessing there's other folks
>> like
>>> myself who haven't had time to even look at this new console yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael André Pearce
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner, and
>>> to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the
>> subject)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users (including
>>> myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management console
>> (a
>>> small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and so
>>> becomes more and more pressing to resolve.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-
>>> artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>> nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html>
>>>>>>> https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/
>>> 39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker <
>> https://softwarerecs.
>>> stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-
>>> for-artemis-jms-broker>
>>>>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-
>>> monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/
>>> questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based off the discussion here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-
>>> the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 <http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but a
>>> small summary of noted in the above thread):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Must be ActiveMQ Branded
>>>>>>> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart
>>> from a powered by.
>>>>>>> Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed
>>>>>>> Provide functionality to manage the broker
>>>>>>> This should be able to expand over time
>>>>>>> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
>>>>>>> The war size should be kept to a minimum
>>>>>>> Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users
>>>>>>> Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in
>>> ActiveMQ Artemis project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the missing
>>> bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks to
>>> Dan, Clebert, Martyn).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a web
>>> console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to bring
>>> your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review comments
>>> there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 <
>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this, so
>>> that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a built
>>> usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this into the
>>> next release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We propose:
>>>>>>> We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ
>> Artemis,
>>> WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming week.
>>>>>>> We will then subsequently look to merge and release another version
>>> of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean release
>>> with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost
>>> immediately after.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra
>>> release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to
>>> iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio
>> project.
>>> I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and
>> simply
>>> see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable web
>>> management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and
>> maintenance
>>> as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many thanks
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tim Bish
>>>>> twitter: @tabish121
>>>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

MichaelAndrePearce
As Dan says there is a reference to being powered by in the about page.

I was under the impression it shouldn't be up front an centre, but in the about area would suffice.



Sent from my iPhone

> On 27 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 27, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart from a
>> powered by.
>>  * I don't see any powered by on the main screens.  We can open a JIRA to
>> track it once this is merged.
>
> It shouldn’t be on the main screen…. There is information on the “About” page (at least last time I looked at it) which is enough.
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>>
>> This should be able to expand over time
>> * Met. It's extendable.
>>
>> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
>> * I've been through each source, license and notice file.  Both in this
>> project and the original project this is imported from.  The original
>> project was not properly licensed, which caused some concern.  However,
>> I've sent a PR which was merged.  I think we're all good here.
>>
>> In summary, I think it's a great first start and something users can use
>> pretty much straight away.
>>
>> +1 from me.  Great work Michael.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I just reviewed the new console via the PR.  I really like it.  Nice work!
>>>
>>>
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's fair guys.. I was just tempted to do it.. but won't to it.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Michael André Pearce
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> I would agree, we should stick to the plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Merging straight after release and releasing again won't delay in
>>>> reality the time people can use it. Apart from a few days at most.
>>>>>
>>>>> But will address/de risks any concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:23, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/13/2017 12:10 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>>>>>> I am tempted to merge it now actually....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone opposed to this? it would be cool to have a console on this
>>>>>>> next release.. if it's all good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please stick to the original plan.  I guessing there's other folks
>>> like
>>>> myself who haven't had time to even look at this new console yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael André Pearce
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner, and
>>>> to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the
>>> subject)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users (including
>>>> myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management console
>>> (a
>>>> small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and so
>>>> becomes more and more pressing to resolve.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-
>>>> artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>> nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html>
>>>>>>>> https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/
>>>> 39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker <
>>> https://softwarerecs.
>>>> stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-
>>>> for-artemis-jms-broker>
>>>>>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-
>>>> monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/
>>>> questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Based off the discussion here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-
>>>> the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 <http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but a
>>>> small summary of noted in the above thread):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Must be ActiveMQ Branded
>>>>>>>> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart
>>>> from a powered by.
>>>>>>>> Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed
>>>>>>>> Provide functionality to manage the broker
>>>>>>>> This should be able to expand over time
>>>>>>>> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
>>>>>>>> The war size should be kept to a minimum
>>>>>>>> Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users
>>>>>>>> Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in
>>>> ActiveMQ Artemis project.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the missing
>>>> bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks to
>>>> Dan, Clebert, Martyn).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a web
>>>> console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to bring
>>>> your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review comments
>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 <
>>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this, so
>>>> that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a built
>>>> usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this into the
>>>> next release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We propose:
>>>>>>>> We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ
>>> Artemis,
>>>> WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming week.
>>>>>>>> We will then subsequently look to merge and release another version
>>>> of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean release
>>>> with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost
>>>> immediately after.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra
>>>> release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to
>>>> iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio
>>> project.
>>>> I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and
>>> simply
>>>> see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable web
>>>> management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and
>>> maintenance
>>>> as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many thanks
>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Tim Bish
>>>>>> twitter: @tabish121
>>>>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

Justin Bertram
I'm confused.  Did Martyn say that a "Powered By" needs to be on the main
page of the console?


Justin

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Michael André Pearce <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> As Dan says there is a reference to being powered by in the about page.
>
> I was under the impression it shouldn't be up front an centre, but in the
> about area would suffice.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 27 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 27, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart
> from a
> >> powered by.
> >>  * I don't see any powered by on the main screens.  We can open a JIRA
> to
> >> track it once this is merged.
> >
> > It shouldn’t be on the main screen…. There is information on the “About”
> page (at least last time I looked at it) which is enough.
> >
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> This should be able to expand over time
> >> * Met. It's extendable.
> >>
> >> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
> >> * I've been through each source, license and notice file.  Both in this
> >> project and the original project this is imported from.  The original
> >> project was not properly licensed, which caused some concern.  However,
> >> I've sent a PR which was merged.  I think we're all good here.
> >>
> >> In summary, I think it's a great first start and something users can use
> >> pretty much straight away.
> >>
> >> +1 from me.  Great work Michael.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I just reviewed the new console via the PR.  I really like it.  Nice
> work!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Justin
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> >>> [hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> That's fair guys.. I was just tempted to do it.. but won't to it.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Michael André Pearce
> >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>> I would agree, we should stick to the plan.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Merging straight after release and releasing again won't delay in
> >>>> reality the time people can use it. Apart from a few days at most.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But will address/de risks any concerns.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:23, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 07/13/2017 12:10 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> >>>>>>> I am tempted to merge it now actually....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anyone opposed to this? it would be cool to have a console on this
> >>>>>>> next release.. if it's all good.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please stick to the original plan.  I guessing there's other folks
> >>> like
> >>>> myself who haven't had time to even look at this new console yet.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael André Pearce
> >>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner,
> and
> >>>> to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the
> >>> subject)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users
> (including
> >>>> myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management
> console
> >>> (a
> >>>> small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and so
> >>>> becomes more and more pressing to resolve.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-
> >>>> artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> >>>> nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html>
> >>>>>>>> https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/
> >>>> 39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker <
> >>> https://softwarerecs.
> >>>> stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-
> >>>> for-artemis-jms-broker>
> >>>>>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-
> >>>> monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/
> >>>> questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Based off the discussion here:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-
> >>>> the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 <
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> >>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.
> html#a4728199>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but a
> >>>> small summary of noted in the above thread):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Must be ActiveMQ Branded
> >>>>>>>> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned
> apart
> >>>> from a powered by.
> >>>>>>>> Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed
> >>>>>>>> Provide functionality to manage the broker
> >>>>>>>> This should be able to expand over time
> >>>>>>>> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
> >>>>>>>> The war size should be kept to a minimum
> >>>>>>>> Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users
> >>>>>>>> Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in
> >>>> ActiveMQ Artemis project.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the
> missing
> >>>> bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks
> to
> >>>> Dan, Clebert, Martyn).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a web
> >>>> console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to
> bring
> >>>> your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review
> comments
> >>>> there.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 <
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this, so
> >>>> that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a
> built
> >>>> usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this into
> the
> >>>> next release.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We propose:
> >>>>>>>> We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ
> >>> Artemis,
> >>>> WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming week.
> >>>>>>>> We will then subsequently look to merge and release another
> version
> >>>> of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean
> release
> >>>> with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost
> >>>> immediately after.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra
> >>>> release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to
> >>>> iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio
> >>> project.
> >>>> I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and
> >>> simply
> >>>> see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable web
> >>>> management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and
> >>> maintenance
> >>>> as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Many thanks
> >>>>>>>> Mike
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Tim Bish
> >>>>>> twitter: @tabish121
> >>>>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSSS] Web Management Console for Artemis.

Martyn Taylor
Perhaps a bad description of what I meant.  To clarify, I didn't see any
powered by logo when I was browsing the console.  A point that was on the
check list and was raised by a community member.  When I've seen these
types of "powered by" logos before, they've been included in a page footer
along with other site information.  I'd need to go digging to find it in
the about page.  I presume the intent of including the powered by logo, is
to draw traction to the HawtIO project, imo a reasonable request, but
perhaps not fulfilled by having it hidden away.

I don't think it's a blocker for the PR.  Just something I wanted to call
out.  We can discuss further on a JIRA.

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm confused.  Did Martyn say that a "Powered By" needs to be on the main
> page of the console?
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Michael André Pearce <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > As Dan says there is a reference to being powered by in the about page.
> >
> > I was under the impression it shouldn't be up front an centre, but in the
> > about area would suffice.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 27 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Jul 27, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart
> > from a
> > >> powered by.
> > >>  * I don't see any powered by on the main screens.  We can open a JIRA
> > to
> > >> track it once this is merged.
> > >
> > > It shouldn’t be on the main screen…. There is information on the
> “About”
> > page (at least last time I looked at it) which is enough.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> This should be able to expand over time
> > >> * Met. It's extendable.
> > >>
> > >> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
> > >> * I've been through each source, license and notice file.  Both in
> this
> > >> project and the original project this is imported from.  The original
> > >> project was not properly licensed, which caused some concern.
> However,
> > >> I've sent a PR which was merged.  I think we're all good here.
> > >>
> > >> In summary, I think it's a great first start and something users can
> use
> > >> pretty much straight away.
> > >>
> > >> +1 from me.  Great work Michael.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I just reviewed the new console via the PR.  I really like it.  Nice
> > work!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Justin
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > >>> [hidden email]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> That's fair guys.. I was just tempted to do it.. but won't to it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Michael André Pearce
> > >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>> I would agree, we should stick to the plan.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Merging straight after release and releasing again won't delay in
> > >>>> reality the time people can use it. Apart from a few days at most.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But will address/de risks any concerns.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:23, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 07/13/2017 12:10 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > >>>>>>> I am tempted to merge it now actually....
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Anyone opposed to this? it would be cool to have a console on
> this
> > >>>>>>> next release.. if it's all good.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Please stick to the original plan.  I guessing there's other folks
> > >>> like
> > >>>> myself who haven't had time to even look at this new console yet.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael André Pearce
> > >>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Hi All,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner,
> > and
> > >>>> to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the
> > >>> subject)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users
> > (including
> > >>>> myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management
> > console
> > >>> (a
> > >>>> small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and
> so
> > >>>> becomes more and more pressing to resolve.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor-
> > >>>> artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> > >>>> nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html>
> > >>>>>>>> https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/
> > >>>> 39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker <
> > >>> https://softwarerecs.
> > >>>> stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console-
> > >>>> for-artemis-jms-broker>
> > >>>>>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to-
> > >>>> monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/
> > >>>> questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Based off the discussion here:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-
> > >>>> the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 <
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> > >>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.
> > html#a4728199>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but
> a
> > >>>> small summary of noted in the above thread):
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Must be ActiveMQ Branded
> > >>>>>>>> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned
> > apart
> > >>>> from a powered by.
> > >>>>>>>> Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed
> > >>>>>>>> Provide functionality to manage the broker
> > >>>>>>>> This should be able to expand over time
> > >>>>>>>> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met
> > >>>>>>>> The war size should be kept to a minimum
> > >>>>>>>> Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users
> > >>>>>>>> Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in
> > >>>> ActiveMQ Artemis project.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the
> > missing
> > >>>> bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks
> > to
> > >>>> Dan, Clebert, Martyn).
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a
> web
> > >>>> console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to
> > bring
> > >>>> your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review
> > comments
> > >>>> there.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 <
> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this,
> so
> > >>>> that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a
> > built
> > >>>> usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this
> into
> > the
> > >>>> next release.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> We propose:
> > >>>>>>>> We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ
> > >>> Artemis,
> > >>>> WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming
> week.
> > >>>>>>>> We will then subsequently look to merge and release another
> > version
> > >>>> of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean
> > release
> > >>>> with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost
> > >>>> immediately after.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra
> > >>>> release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to
> > >>>> iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio
> > >>> project.
> > >>>> I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and
> > >>> simply
> > >>>> see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable
> web
> > >>>> management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and
> > >>> maintenance
> > >>>> as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Many thanks
> > >>>>>>>> Mike
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Tim Bish
> > >>>>>> twitter: @tabish121
> > >>>>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daniel Kulp
> > > [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > >
> >
>
Loading...