Quantcast

What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

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

What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

cschneider
I have read the old threads about the web console.

If I understood correctly then we would like to get rid of the current
activemq web console but need a replacement. There is hawt.io which
functionally would work but which is not compatible from a community
standpoint.

The end of the thread was that we wanted to start a web console in a new
repo. It seems nothing has happened since then.
What I could imagine is to follow a similar path as hawt.io and use a
javascript framework for the UI that uses http and jolokia to access the
jmx layer of the broker.

So is anyone interested in pursuing this? I can help with this but would
not want to start it as a one man show.

Christian


--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de

Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com

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

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

clebertsuconic
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Christian Schneider
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have read the old threads about the web console.
>
> If I understood correctly then we would like to get rid of the current
> activemq web console but need a replacement. There is hawt.io which
> functionally would work but which is not compatible from a community
> standpoint.

My understand was: as long as it looked like an apache console, and
not a commercial product belonging to any company it would be ok.

Hawt.io 2 (or whatever newer version that is) would allow that.

>
> The end of the thread was that we wanted to start a web console in a new
> repo. It seems nothing has happened since then.
> What I could imagine is to follow a similar path as hawt.io and use a
> javascript framework for the UI that uses http and jolokia to access the jmx
> layer of the broker.
>
> So is anyone interested in pursuing this? I can help with this but would not
> want to start it as a one man show.

I'm talking about myself only here. I was interested on making this
happening, but I got with this refactoring I'm doing on encoding, so I
won't be able to come into this for some time. But I would at least
keep an eye on the development until I get more busy on it.

Now I believe this is a cool subject, and I'm sure there would be
others interested. Making it a separate repo would make it possible to
be compatible with AMQ5 as well as Artemis.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

dkulp

> On Feb 17, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Christian Schneider
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I have read the old threads about the web console.
>>
>> If I understood correctly then we would like to get rid of the current
>> activemq web console but need a replacement. There is hawt.io which
>> functionally would work but which is not compatible from a community
>> standpoint.
>
> My understand was: as long as it looked like an apache console, and
> not a commercial product belonging to any company it would be ok.
>

*AND* all of the ActiveMQ/Artemis related bits are written and maintained here at Apache as part of this community.  How the queues and brokers and such are presented to the user is completely under the control of this community.

In other words: we don’t take the activemq plugin or whatever they have and use it as is. (Unless they want to donate it to this community)

--
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: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

christopher.l.shannon
Yes there seemed to be some consensus to build a plugin hosted here at
Apache or to build a new console altogether to support 5.x and Artemis.
And we would keep the existing console until then.

However, the hold up has always been finding people who have time to work
on it and want to work on it.  If someone wants to create a repo and start
working on it that would probably help to get others involved.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > On Feb 17, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Christian Schneider
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> I have read the old threads about the web console.
> >>
> >> If I understood correctly then we would like to get rid of the current
> >> activemq web console but need a replacement. There is hawt.io which
> >> functionally would work but which is not compatible from a community
> >> standpoint.
> >
> > My understand was: as long as it looked like an apache console, and
> > not a commercial product belonging to any company it would be ok.
> >
>
> *AND* all of the ActiveMQ/Artemis related bits are written and maintained
> here at Apache as part of this community.  How the queues and brokers and
> such are presented to the user is completely under the control of this
> community.
>
> In other words: we don’t take the activemq plugin or whatever they have
> and use it as is. (Unless they want to donate it to this community)
>
> --
> 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: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by dkulp
> *AND* all of the ActiveMQ/Artemis related bits are written and maintained here at Apache as part of this community.  How the queues and brokers and such are presented to the user is completely under the control of this community.
>
> In other words: we don’t take the activemq plugin or whatever they have and use it as is. (Unless they want to donate it to this community)

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

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by christopher.l.shannon
What about start doing it right after Artemis 2.0.0 is out? Aim it to
2.1.0 (on Artemis, being compatible with AMQ5 (still a question mark
on how to do it.. but I"m taking this is a requirement)).


On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Christopher Shannon
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes there seemed to be some consensus to build a plugin hosted here at
> Apache or to build a new console altogether to support 5.x and Artemis.
> And we would keep the existing console until then.
>
> However, the hold up has always been finding people who have time to work
> on it and want to work on it.  If someone wants to create a repo and start
> working on it that would probably help to get others involved.
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Feb 17, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Christian Schneider
>> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> I have read the old threads about the web console.
>> >>
>> >> If I understood correctly then we would like to get rid of the current
>> >> activemq web console but need a replacement. There is hawt.io which
>> >> functionally would work but which is not compatible from a community
>> >> standpoint.
>> >
>> > My understand was: as long as it looked like an apache console, and
>> > not a commercial product belonging to any company it would be ok.
>> >
>>
>> *AND* all of the ActiveMQ/Artemis related bits are written and maintained
>> here at Apache as part of this community.  How the queues and brokers and
>> such are presented to the user is completely under the control of this
>> community.
>>
>> In other words: we don’t take the activemq plugin or whatever they have
>> and use it as is. (Unless they want to donate it to this community)
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>>



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

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

Martyn Taylor
Thanks for restoring this discussion.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> What about start doing it right after Artemis 2.0.0 is out? Aim it to
> 2.1.0 (on Artemis, being compatible with AMQ5 (still a question mark
> on how to do it.. but I"m taking this is a requirement)).
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Christopher Shannon
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Yes there seemed to be some consensus to build a plugin hosted here at
> > Apache or to build a new console altogether to support 5.x and Artemis.
> > And we would keep the existing console until then.
>
Yes!

The console is something I am really passionate about.  In my opinion user
experience is the number one priority and the lack of any form of console
in Artemis is just a disaster.  We're really missing a trick here as I
think we could build something fantastic for both ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis.

>
> > However, the hold up has always been finding people who have time to work
> > on it and want to work on it.  If someone wants to create a repo and
> start
> > working on it that would probably help to get others involved.
>
I'm more than happy to take this on and get a repository created and put a
basic framework in place.  This should get the ball rolling.

> >
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > On Feb 17, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Christian Schneider
> >> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >> I have read the old threads about the web console.
> >> >>
> >> >> If I understood correctly then we would like to get rid of the
> current
> >> >> activemq web console but need a replacement. There is hawt.io which
> >> >> functionally would work but which is not compatible from a community
> >> >> standpoint.
> >> >
> >> > My understand was: as long as it looked like an apache console, and
> >> > not a commercial product belonging to any company it would be ok.
> >> >
> >>
> >> *AND* all of the ActiveMQ/Artemis related bits are written and
> maintained
> >> here at Apache as part of this community.  How the queues and brokers
> and
> >> such are presented to the user is completely under the control of this
> >> community.
> >>
> >> In other words: we don’t take the activemq plugin or whatever they have
> >> and use it as is. (Unless they want to donate it to this community)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Kulp
> >> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

christopher.l.shannon
Agreed, having a good user experience should be a high priority and having
some way to configure a broker and monitor a broker at runtime that is user
friendly is ideal.  If the web console can rely on something like a REST
service and JMX for data then it will also allow other tools to be built to
help with management.  Besides a web console I also find a command line
interface based console to be really useful.  Being able to quickly run
commands from a shell to do things such as make configuration changes or
view metrics is useful because it is fast and can be easily scripted.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks for restoring this discussion.
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > What about start doing it right after Artemis 2.0.0 is out? Aim it to
> > 2.1.0 (on Artemis, being compatible with AMQ5 (still a question mark
> > on how to do it.. but I"m taking this is a requirement)).
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Christopher Shannon
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Yes there seemed to be some consensus to build a plugin hosted here at
> > > Apache or to build a new console altogether to support 5.x and Artemis.
> > > And we would keep the existing console until then.
> >
> Yes!
>
> The console is something I am really passionate about.  In my opinion user
> experience is the number one priority and the lack of any form of console
> in Artemis is just a disaster.  We're really missing a trick here as I
> think we could build something fantastic for both ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis.
>
> >
> > > However, the hold up has always been finding people who have time to
> work
> > > on it and want to work on it.  If someone wants to create a repo and
> > start
> > > working on it that would probably help to get others involved.
> >
> I'm more than happy to take this on and get a repository created and put a
> basic framework in place.  This should get the ball rolling.
>
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > On Feb 17, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Clebert Suconic <
> > [hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Christian Schneider
> > >> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> >> I have read the old threads about the web console.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If I understood correctly then we would like to get rid of the
> > current
> > >> >> activemq web console but need a replacement. There is hawt.io
> which
> > >> >> functionally would work but which is not compatible from a
> community
> > >> >> standpoint.
> > >> >
> > >> > My understand was: as long as it looked like an apache console, and
> > >> > not a commercial product belonging to any company it would be ok.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> *AND* all of the ActiveMQ/Artemis related bits are written and
> > maintained
> > >> here at Apache as part of this community.  How the queues and brokers
> > and
> > >> such are presented to the user is completely under the control of this
> > >> community.
> > >>
> > >> In other words: we don’t take the activemq plugin or whatever they
> have
> > >> and use it as is. (Unless they want to donate it to this community)
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Daniel Kulp
> > >> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

clebertsuconic
@CShannon: I saw a few guys from Brazil (Right, @Fabio?), implementing
an awesome interface on top of Artemis using Grafana:


https://github.com/grafana/grafana


Pretty impressive.  :O



If we build a separate repo, we could have scripts for things like
Grafana, or other tools like this!!!! It would rock!!!







On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Christopher Shannon
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Agreed, having a good user experience should be a high priority and having
> some way to configure a broker and monitor a broker at runtime that is user
> friendly is ideal.  If the web console can rely on something like a REST
> service and JMX for data then it will also allow other tools to be built to
> help with management.  Besides a web console I also find a command line
> interface based console to be really useful.  Being able to quickly run
> commands from a shell to do things such as make configuration changes or
> view metrics is useful because it is fast and can be easily scripted.
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for restoring this discussion.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > What about start doing it right after Artemis 2.0.0 is out? Aim it to
>> > 2.1.0 (on Artemis, being compatible with AMQ5 (still a question mark
>> > on how to do it.. but I"m taking this is a requirement)).
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Christopher Shannon
>> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > Yes there seemed to be some consensus to build a plugin hosted here at
>> > > Apache or to build a new console altogether to support 5.x and Artemis.
>> > > And we would keep the existing console until then.
>> >
>> Yes!
>>
>> The console is something I am really passionate about.  In my opinion user
>> experience is the number one priority and the lack of any form of console
>> in Artemis is just a disaster.  We're really missing a trick here as I
>> think we could build something fantastic for both ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis.
>>
>> >
>> > > However, the hold up has always been finding people who have time to
>> work
>> > > on it and want to work on it.  If someone wants to create a repo and
>> > start
>> > > working on it that would probably help to get others involved.
>> >
>> I'm more than happy to take this on and get a repository created and put a
>> basic framework in place.  This should get the ball rolling.
>>
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> > On Feb 17, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Clebert Suconic <
>> > [hidden email]>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Christian Schneider
>> > >> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >> >> I have read the old threads about the web console.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> If I understood correctly then we would like to get rid of the
>> > current
>> > >> >> activemq web console but need a replacement. There is hawt.io
>> which
>> > >> >> functionally would work but which is not compatible from a
>> community
>> > >> >> standpoint.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > My understand was: as long as it looked like an apache console, and
>> > >> > not a commercial product belonging to any company it would be ok.
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> *AND* all of the ActiveMQ/Artemis related bits are written and
>> > maintained
>> > >> here at Apache as part of this community.  How the queues and brokers
>> > and
>> > >> such are presented to the user is completely under the control of this
>> > >> community.
>> > >>
>> > >> In other words: we don’t take the activemq plugin or whatever they
>> have
>> > >> and use it as is. (Unless they want to donate it to this community)
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Daniel Kulp
>> > >> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> > >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>> >
>>



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

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

clebertsuconic
For an example of what they did:

Look at the attachment on this JIRA raised here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-748


https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12830361/Grafana%20%20%20Artemis%20Queues%20%20%20Dashboard.png

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Clebert Suconic
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> @CShannon: I saw a few guys from Brazil (Right, @Fabio?), implementing
> an awesome interface on top of Artemis using Grafana:
>
>
> https://github.com/grafana/grafana
>
>
> Pretty impressive.  :O
>
>
>
> If we build a separate repo, we could have scripts for things like
> Grafana, or other tools like this!!!! It would rock!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Christopher Shannon
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Agreed, having a good user experience should be a high priority and having
>> some way to configure a broker and monitor a broker at runtime that is user
>> friendly is ideal.  If the web console can rely on something like a REST
>> service and JMX for data then it will also allow other tools to be built to
>> help with management.  Besides a web console I also find a command line
>> interface based console to be really useful.  Being able to quickly run
>> commands from a shell to do things such as make configuration changes or
>> view metrics is useful because it is fast and can be easily scripted.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for restoring this discussion.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > What about start doing it right after Artemis 2.0.0 is out? Aim it to
>>> > 2.1.0 (on Artemis, being compatible with AMQ5 (still a question mark
>>> > on how to do it.. but I"m taking this is a requirement)).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Christopher Shannon
>>> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > > Yes there seemed to be some consensus to build a plugin hosted here at
>>> > > Apache or to build a new console altogether to support 5.x and Artemis.
>>> > > And we would keep the existing console until then.
>>> >
>>> Yes!
>>>
>>> The console is something I am really passionate about.  In my opinion user
>>> experience is the number one priority and the lack of any form of console
>>> in Artemis is just a disaster.  We're really missing a trick here as I
>>> think we could build something fantastic for both ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > > However, the hold up has always been finding people who have time to
>>> work
>>> > > on it and want to work on it.  If someone wants to create a repo and
>>> > start
>>> > > working on it that would probably help to get others involved.
>>> >
>>> I'm more than happy to take this on and get a repository created and put a
>>> basic framework in place.  This should get the ball rolling.
>>>
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >>
>>> > >> > On Feb 17, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Clebert Suconic <
>>> > [hidden email]>
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Christian Schneider
>>> > >> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > >> >> I have read the old threads about the web console.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> If I understood correctly then we would like to get rid of the
>>> > current
>>> > >> >> activemq web console but need a replacement. There is hawt.io
>>> which
>>> > >> >> functionally would work but which is not compatible from a
>>> community
>>> > >> >> standpoint.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > My understand was: as long as it looked like an apache console, and
>>> > >> > not a commercial product belonging to any company it would be ok.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *AND* all of the ActiveMQ/Artemis related bits are written and
>>> > maintained
>>> > >> here at Apache as part of this community.  How the queues and brokers
>>> > and
>>> > >> such are presented to the user is completely under the control of this
>>> > >> community.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> In other words: we don’t take the activemq plugin or whatever they
>>> have
>>> > >> and use it as is. (Unless they want to donate it to this community)
>>> > >>
>>> > >> --
>>> > >> Daniel Kulp
>>> > >> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>> > >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Clebert Suconic
>>> >
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



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

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

Fabio Gomes dos Santos
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
right!

Zabbix + zabbix-java-gateway + http://github.com/supergrilo/pyjmx-discovery
+ grafana

To execute commands jmxcmd:

```
/movile/jdk8/bin/java -jar /movile/artemis-data/bin/jmxcmd.jar -
localhost:8100
'org.apache.activemq.artemis:brokerName="artemis-diveo",module=JMS,name="
MOVILE.QUEUE.NAME",serviceType=Queue,type=Broker' 'pause=true
```

soon a article about that "ecosystem".

2017-02-17 14:20 GMT-02:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:

> @CShannon: I saw a few guys from Brazil (Right, @Fabio?), implementing
> an awesome interface on top of Artemis using Grafana:
>
>
> https://github.com/grafana/grafana
>
>
> Pretty impressive.  :O
>
>
>
> If we build a separate repo, we could have scripts for things like
> Grafana, or other tools like this!!!! It would rock!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Christopher Shannon
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Agreed, having a good user experience should be a high priority and
> having
> > some way to configure a broker and monitor a broker at runtime that is
> user
> > friendly is ideal.  If the web console can rely on something like a REST
> > service and JMX for data then it will also allow other tools to be built
> to
> > help with management.  Besides a web console I also find a command line
> > interface based console to be really useful.  Being able to quickly run
> > commands from a shell to do things such as make configuration changes or
> > view metrics is useful because it is fast and can be easily scripted.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for restoring this discussion.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > What about start doing it right after Artemis 2.0.0 is out? Aim it to
> >> > 2.1.0 (on Artemis, being compatible with AMQ5 (still a question mark
> >> > on how to do it.. but I"m taking this is a requirement)).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Christopher Shannon
> >> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > Yes there seemed to be some consensus to build a plugin hosted here
> at
> >> > > Apache or to build a new console altogether to support 5.x and
> Artemis.
> >> > > And we would keep the existing console until then.
> >> >
> >> Yes!
> >>
> >> The console is something I am really passionate about.  In my opinion
> user
> >> experience is the number one priority and the lack of any form of
> console
> >> in Artemis is just a disaster.  We're really missing a trick here as I
> >> think we could build something fantastic for both ActiveMQ 5.x and
> Artemis.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > > However, the hold up has always been finding people who have time to
> >> work
> >> > > on it and want to work on it.  If someone wants to create a repo and
> >> > start
> >> > > working on it that would probably help to get others involved.
> >> >
> >> I'm more than happy to take this on and get a repository created and
> put a
> >> basic framework in place.  This should get the ball rolling.
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > On Feb 17, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Clebert Suconic <
> >> > [hidden email]>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Christian Schneider
> >> > >> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > >> >> I have read the old threads about the web console.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> If I understood correctly then we would like to get rid of the
> >> > current
> >> > >> >> activemq web console but need a replacement. There is hawt.io
> >> which
> >> > >> >> functionally would work but which is not compatible from a
> >> community
> >> > >> >> standpoint.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > My understand was: as long as it looked like an apache console,
> and
> >> > >> > not a commercial product belonging to any company it would be ok.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> *AND* all of the ActiveMQ/Artemis related bits are written and
> >> > maintained
> >> > >> here at Apache as part of this community.  How the queues and
> brokers
> >> > and
> >> > >> such are presented to the user is completely under the control of
> this
> >> > >> community.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> In other words: we don’t take the activemq plugin or whatever they
> >> have
> >> > >> and use it as is. (Unless they want to donate it to this community)
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> Daniel Kulp
> >> > >> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >> > >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Clebert Suconic
> >> >
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

cschneider
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
How about creating a hawtio plugin for activemq and artemis at apache if
redhat does not donate these? -- which would of course be the best option.

I personally would be fine with the hawtio core not being at apache if
the specific plugins are here. So we have most of the control without
trying to replicate hawtio.
In a chat with Dan he added that hawtio must be skinnable enough to have
an apache look. I agree with that.

Christian

On 17.02.2017 15:39, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>> *AND* all of the ActiveMQ/Artemis related bits are written and maintained here at Apache as part of this community.  How the queues and brokers and such are presented to the user is completely under the control of this community.
>>
>> In other words: we don’t take the activemq plugin or whatever they have and use it as is. (Unless they want to donate it to this community)
> Of course!


--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de

Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com

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

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

Martyn Taylor
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Christian Schneider <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> How about creating a hawtio plugin for activemq and artemis at apache


So my opinion on this...

I feel quite passionately about creating a really great UX for both
ActiveMQ and Artemis and I'm not sure that a HawtIO plugin is what I'd
hoped for when we started talking about an ActiveMQ console.  I think we
could build something that is more focused and much more UX driven than the
ActiveMQ HawtIO plugins that have been created outside Apache.

I'd much prefer to see a console built specifically for the messaging
space.  With something focused solely on messaging, we can think about the
best way to model/manage messaging concepts and how to expose these things
to the end users.  My view is that we either consider some of the other
frameworks like the ones mentioned in this thread, or (my first preference)
would be to go down the route of building our own, something specific to
messaging, based on technologies like HTML5/JS + Bootstrap with the
back-end being made plugable so we could manage both ActiveMQ 5.x and
Artemis brokers.

if redhat does not donate these? -- which would of course be the best
> option.
>
I'd prefer not to go down this route, but, if the community decide this is
the way forward, then I don't think this would be a problem.

>
> I personally would be fine with the hawtio core not being at apache if the
> specific plugins are here. So we have most of the control without trying to
> replicate hawtio.
> In a chat with Dan he added that hawtio must be skinnable enough to have
> an apache look. I agree with that.
>
> Christian
>
>
> On 17.02.2017 15:39, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
>> *AND* all of the ActiveMQ/Artemis related bits are written and maintained
>>> here at Apache as part of this community.  How the queues and brokers and
>>> such are presented to the user is completely under the control of this
>>> community.
>>>
>>> In other words: we don’t take the activemq plugin or whatever they have
>>> and use it as is. (Unless they want to donate it to this community)
>>>
>> Of course!
>>
>
>
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> http://www.talend.com
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

cschneider
The reason why I thought about a hawtio plugin is that it would be mimal
effort compared to other solutions.

Some things that I like in Hawtio:

- It provides a framework for plugins. So you can have one console that
gives you access to ActiveMQ but also to other modules in your system
- It uses jolokia to access the existing JMX layer over REST. So we do
not need to create an additional REST layer for the console on the AMQ
and Artemis side
- Uses a html/javascript client (Angular). So the client side is easy to
install on any server

So if we do not write a Hawtio plugin then we should still consider to
use jolokia to avoid overhead on the server side.
I also think a framework to hook other plugins in would be great but for
just the activemq and artemis consoles it is not absolutely necessary.

So ideally I would like to have something like Hatwio at apache as a
generic base for a console where all apache projects can hook in via
plugins. Unfortunately this is a lot of effort and I am not sure if we
find enough manpower to do it.  It would also be a project on its own
and should not be done at activemq.

Christian


On 22.02.2017 18:05, Martyn Taylor wrote:

>
> So my opinion on this...
>
> I feel quite passionately about creating a really great UX for both
> ActiveMQ and Artemis and I'm not sure that a HawtIO plugin is what I'd
> hoped for when we started talking about an ActiveMQ console.  I think we
> could build something that is more focused and much more UX driven than the
> ActiveMQ HawtIO plugins that have been created outside Apache.
>
> I'd much prefer to see a console built specifically for the messaging
> space.  With something focused solely on messaging, we can think about the
> best way to model/manage messaging concepts and how to expose these things
> to the end users.  My view is that we either consider some of the other
> frameworks like the ones mentioned in this thread, or (my first preference)
> would be to go down the route of building our own, something specific to
> messaging, based on technologies like HTML5/JS + Bootstrap with the
> back-end being made plugable so we could manage both ActiveMQ 5.x and
> Artemis brokers.
>
> if redhat does not donate these? -- which would of course be the best
>> option.
>>
> I'd prefer not to go down this route, but, if the community decide this is
> the way forward, then I don't think this would be a problem.
>
>> I personally would be fine with the hawtio core not being at apache if the
>> specific plugins are here. So we have most of the control without trying to
>> replicate hawtio.
>> In a chat with Dan he added that hawtio must be skinnable enough to have
>> an apache look. I agree with that.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> On 17.02.2017 15:39, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>
>>> *AND* all of the ActiveMQ/Artemis related bits are written and maintained
>>>> here at Apache as part of this community.  How the queues and brokers and
>>>> such are presented to the user is completely under the control of this
>>>> community.
>>>>
>>>> In other words: we don’t take the activemq plugin or whatever they have
>>>> and use it as is. (Unless they want to donate it to this community)
>>>>
>>> Of course!
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Christian Schneider
>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>
>> Open Source Architect
>> http://www.talend.com
>>
>>


--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de

Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com

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

Re: What is the current status and plans for the web-console?

clebertsuconic
I liked Martyn's proposal for being a cool thing :)


Just looked at this thing he mentioned (bootstrap).. man.. it's really cool...
http://getbootstrap.com/getting-started/


I'm not writing software just to be cool... but a great console would
definitely improve things...


One thing with a great UI though... our website still sucks :)


> - It provides a framework for plugins. So you can have one console that
> gives you access to ActiveMQ but also to other modules in your system
> - It uses jolokia to access the existing JMX layer over REST. So we do not
> need to create an additional REST layer for the console on the AMQ and
> Artemis side
> - Uses a html/javascript client (Angular). So the client side is easy to
> install on any server
>
> So if we do not write a Hawtio plugin then we should still consider to use
> jolokia to avoid overhead on the server side.
> I also think a framework to hook other plugins in would be great but for
> just the activemq and artemis consoles it is not absolutely necessary.

+1... although I strongly encourage to keep the bits isolated. Not
only for easy switch between AMQ5 and Artemis, but eventually we could
include other technologies available on the console. (examples: AMQP
Management, JMX, some consoles standard that I don't remember now, or
any other thing yet to be invented)..   All I'm asking is for standard
OO encapsulation.

>
> So ideally I would like to have something like Hatwio at apache as a generic
> base for a console where all apache projects can hook in via plugins.
> Unfortunately this is a lot of effort and I am not sure if we find enough
> manpower to do it.  It would also be a project on its own and should not be
> done at activemq.



..... if I had the time.....     :/
Loading...