Thanks for the contributions, it's great to get more devs involved. I'm on vacation this week, i will take look next week when I'm back.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025, 20:02 Gašper Čefarin, <gasper.cefa...@actual-it.si> wrote: > There was nothing specific - and no, i didn't see any of the mentioned > links. > > I'm not really an active member, I only knew that there's a new console > under development. > > I'm looking forward to using it on our systems, but like mentioned, it > needs some improvements - hoping my PRs get some feedback soon. > > Thanks > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > *Sent:* 14 April 2025 17:37:59 > *To:* users@activemq.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: 2.40.0 HAWTIO console design > > > I was also under the impression that the console would look different > when finally included... > > Was there something specific that gave you that impression? Did you see the > Jira [1] or the PR [2] related to the integration work or the vote thread > [3] that said the new console was integrated? Keep in mind that the voting > process is a natural time to try a release and voice concerns. > > > I made a couple of PRs and I'll continue to make them if time allows. > > Thanks for that. We all win when folks contribute! > > > Justin > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-5319 > [2] https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/5467 > [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/73qfw2s6rgx1t89g7pn73h44msdrzcno > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 5:52 AM Gašper Čefarin < > gasper.cefa...@actual-it.si> > wrote: > > > Hello, > > I was also under the impression that the console would look different > when > > finally included into the artemisMQ, when I was testing version 1.0.0 - > > hence no suggestions or comments from my side. > > > > I think the points made by Vilius and Jan are valid. I also suggest > making > > jira issues for any problems or suggestions so that it's easier to track > > them, and so that Andy doesn't have to track everything ... > > > > The new console feels much faster, and I appreciate that. It does however > > feel unfinished. I made a couple of PRs and I'll continue to make them if > > time allows. > > It would be nice to see more time and effort being put into console, > > especially in these early stages. It's the frontend that the "normal" > user > > sees first, and gets the first impressions from. > > > > > > > > [image: 1658227403484] > > Gašper Čefarin > > > > > > *Systems Engineer *Ferrarska ulica 14 > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Ferrarska+ulica+14?entry=gmail&source=g>, > 6000 Koper – Slovenia > > M: +386 51 281 905 > > W: http://www.actual-it.si > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com> > > *Sent:* 11 April 2025 13:13 > > *To:* users@activemq.apache.org > > *Subject:* Re: 2.40.0 HAWTIO console design > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-5419 > > > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 11:54, Vilius Šumskas > > <vilius.sums...@rivile.lt.invalid> wrote: > > > > > I hope it's OK, but I could add one note regarding filter column. If > > > filter is complicated the table doesn't fit into the screen and doesn't > > > have any horizontal scrollbar to see other columns. See > > > https://pasteboard.co/4cBlYsqgCaSx.png I think old console also didn't > > > fit my filters into a window, but at least it had a way to scroll > > > horitontally. > > > The issue probably could be reproduced with any column containing large > > > text block. > > > > > > -- > > > Vilius > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com> > > > Sent: Friday, April 11, 2025 12:09 PM > > > To: users@activemq.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: 2.40.0 HAWTIO console design > > > > > > I have created some Jiras to cover the feedback, see [1] for the > current > > > open Console jiras. I am going to make ARTEMIS-5406 my priority as it > > > covers mostly improvements around address/queue navigation and > > management. > > > If anyone has any more ideas as to how to improve this then let me > know, > > > or even some mockups? > > > > > > Jan I didn't quite understand the following > > > > > > * Getting back from the list of queues to the list of addresses is only > > > possible by clicking the Addresses panel, and that returns me back to > > page > > > 1. > > > * Navigating without the tree forces me to open the list of queues. > > > However, some queues may have very complicated filters, so the filter > > > column needs to stay hidden. > > > > > > could you provide more info and I will raise jiras. > > > > > > just fyi I am on PTO for the couple of weeks so won't have access to > > email > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-5406?jql=project%20%3D%20ARTEMIS%20AND%20component%20%3D%20%22Web%20Console%22%20and%20status%20%3D%20Open%20 > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 13:39, Vilius Šumskas > > <vilius.sums...@rivile.lt.invalid> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > First of all, thank you very much Andy for your hard work! Compared > to > > > > other brokers, like for example RabbitMQ or RocketMQ, or any pub/sub > > > > type cloud based implementation, Artemis management UI is lacking so > > > > ANY movement in that direction is much appreciated. > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, I think part of the feedback from Jan is valid. I could > > > > not use the new console before it was released, as we have an > internal > > > > policy to not allow dev versions in our infrastructure, but I've been > > > > using console on Artemis 2.40.0 for couple of weeks now I thought I > > > > will share my wishes and nuances I've stumbled upon. Our use case is > > > > mainly to allow our Java app developers to have an overview of the > > > > Artemis broker itself and perform some cleanup/delete operations on > > > > addresses and queues, but I think some points could make console more > > > usable for everyone. > > > > > > > > * I'm not really missing three view of an old console. I think a tree > > > > looses usability very quickly when you have at least few hundred > > > > queues or more. Getting rid of it was the right choice. However, this > > > > didn't solve another issue (which by the way was in the old console > > > > too). The issue of requiring to navigate between addresses and queues > > > > tabs very often, even for simple task. Let's say I want to cleanup > old > > > > queues which are a left over of a legacy JMS subscription topic. > > > > First I have to go to Queues tab, then order by consumer count, find > a > > > > queue which has 0 consumers, click on address name of that queue to > > > > ensure that another queue for that address exist, delete legacy > queue, > > > > go back into queues tab and repeat all actions for the next item in > the > > > list. This switches tabs at least couple of times. > > > > I think having some kind of limited representation of hierarchy on > > > > particular address or queue page would be very useful, and there will > > > > be no need to move away from the tab. As an example you can see how > > > > hierarchy is represented in RabbitMQ management UI. One queue page > > > > with bindings below https://pasteboard.co/8jXYZ1bOYSBk.png , one > > > > exchange with all bound queue https://pasteboard.co/B1Ln592HA6x7.png > > > > (exchange == address in Artemis terms). > > > > * Search and sorting options should be remembered at least for the > > > > duration of the web session. It is a pain to do sorting option reset > > > > essentially for every query. > > > > * Search by "name" field and search using "contains" instead of > > "equals" > > > > by default. > > > > * There is a small UI bug where choosing a sorting or search option > > > > doesn't remove the dropdown from the view. You have to click one more > > > > time on the dropdown, to make it go away. > > > > * Sorting by clicking on the column name would be nice. > > > > * Address/Queue name in the list should be clickable and go into > > > > particular object overview. > > > > * Various basic operation buttons should be visible and not hidden > > > > under "three dots" menu. Some basic operations, like queue purge, > send > > > > message, etc. could appear in the object overview window mentioned > > > > above. Now you have to hunt for those actions partly in Artemis JMX > > > > view, partly by clicking three dots menu. > > > > * Support for multi-object operations would be great, like the > ability > > > > to select couple of queues from the list and delete them. Use case is > > > > simple, find queues with most messages and delete them. My ideal > > > > process for such case would look like this: 1) go to Queues tab, 2) > > > > click on the "message count" column two times to sort in descending > > > > order, 3) mark, let's say, top 4 results, 4) click "delete" button on > > > > top which is placed somewhere near search form. > > > > * Less padding and smaller fonts. This could be a user preference. > > > > * Ability to display dates in ISO 8601 format. > > > > * In Artemis JMX tree, clicking on attribute opens docked window with > > > > full attribute description on the right, but in order to close that > > > > docked window you have to click X symbol. It would be great if > > > > clicking the same attribute the second time the window would be > closed. > > > > > > > > Hopefully that's a fair feedback from me. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Vilius > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com> > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2025 9:15 AM > > > > To: users@activemq.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: 2.40.0 HAWTIO console design > > > > > > > > + 1 to all that Justin said. Just to add a little more, Jolokia polls > > > > + all > > > > the JMX beans regularly and this does not currently scale, once you > > > > hit a certain number of addresses the console just hangs, most of > this > > > > is just for the JMX tree and isnt needed for the non JMX view. I am > > > > currently working with the hawtIO team to introduce a caching > > > > mechanism to alleviate some of this and once that is complete I will > > > > add a flag to disable the JMX view which will in turn mean no polling > > > > is needed. This will allow the console to scale. > > > > > > > > If I get time today I will go thru the bullet list raised and create > > > > some jiras. Just fyi the design of components was really driven by > > > > what Patternfly <https://www.patternfly.org/> exposes by default, > > > > making the console experience the same would not be a sensible > > > > approach and would have taken much longer. > > > > > > > > As always this is a community project and it would be great to have > > > > some other folk contribute, currently it is only me and my time is > > > > limited, although I will prioritise any issues and address them when > I > > > have time. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 at 23:43, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It's worth noting that there have been 2 independent releases of > the > > > > > console that was integrated into and shipped with 2.40.0. Both of > > > > > these releases were announced on this list [1] [2]. Both > > > > > announcements included a notification that it would replace the > > > existing console. > > > > > The first release was in early October 2024 so there's been roughly > > > > > 6 months to test and provide feedback. > > > > > > > > > > I realize folks are busy, etc. My point is simply that early > > > > > feedback was an option, and the redesign shouldn't have been a > > > > > surprise. I'm not sure what else could have been done to make a > > > meaningful difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Justin > > > > > > > > > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread/vzw5qr4zs59lm35g99g1034jgfcynm6x > > > > > [2] > https://lists.apache.org/thread/cm6001qcmp98lpx7p1p75pc3v1l0c0yr > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 3:44 AM Jan Šmucr > > > > > <jan.sm...@aimtecglobal.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello. > > > > > > I know I may get some hate for this, but still, I'd like to ask: > > > > > > Is the new console about to get some usability upgrades? > > > > > > We're running 2.35.0 atm, and soon I'll be asked to upgrade to a > > > > > > newer version. But admittedly, the new console gives me wrinkles. > > > > > > Simply put, it's more JMX and less Artemis, and it wastes way too > > > > > > much space for a productivity tool. > > > > > > 2.39.0 main screen with address tree expanded: > > > > > > https://ibb.co/JRqmmqHk > > > > > > 2.40.0 main screen with address tree expanded: > > > > > > https://ibb.co/svh1DFTh Are there plans to adjust the console > > > > > > towards the previous user experience, or can I somehow revert to > > > > > > the > > > > original one? > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NOTICE - NOT TO BE REMOVED. > > This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain legally > > privileged information and/or copyright material of Actual I.T. or third > > parties. If you are not an authorised recipient of this e-mail, please > > contact Actual I.T. immediately by return email or by telephone or > > facsimile on the above numbers. > > You should not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this > > email or any attachments and you should destroy all copies of them. > > > > NOTICE - NOT TO BE REMOVED. > This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain legally > privileged information and/or copyright material of Actual I.T. or third > parties. If you are not an authorised recipient of this e-mail, please > contact Actual I.T. immediately by return email or by telephone or > facsimile on the above numbers. > You should not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this > email or any attachments and you should destroy all copies of them. >
