There was some talk in another thread on the dev list about a possible donation of AMQC. I had mentioned this in that same thread but if the project does get donated I would think making it into a separate ActiveMQ sub project would be best. Then it could support both ActiveMQ 5.x and eventually Artemis as well as be released independently.
Also, with AMQC as a separate project the current webconsole could stay as is and continue to be bundled with ActiveMQ for now and if the community eventually decides that AMQC is a better alternative after a period of time (as Tim said, it needs to be proven and we need user feedback), then the old webconsole could be deprecated/removed. On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > If it works better than the current web console, I'd be in favor of > deploying both and recommending the new one (and maybe eventually deploying > only this new console, if it really does turn out to be a full > replacement), once it's had a long enough shake-out period to fix any bugs > and gain confidence that it really does meet most people's needs. > > But we're obviously still a long way from being ready to consider that > possibility; for now, it looks primising but is unproven, and we need > people to try it and say whether it really does work better (and how it > could be improved). > On Dec 4, 2015 10:32 PM, "artnaseef" <a...@artnaseef.com> wrote: > > > Interesting point. > > > > Jetty is a technology used by the current webconsole, so yes disabling > the > > same disables the webconsole. That leads to the question, "is there any > > issue with changing that dependency to jolokia?" > > > > Anyway, are we even talking about replacing the existing webconsole, or > did > > I read too much into the wording on the wiki for AMQC? > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-web-console-tp4704522p4704638.html > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
