ActiveMQ web console better than Artemis?

[artemisn00b <pr...@nokia.com>]

Hi,

I was wondering why activemq's web console is much better, compared to
artemis. Is there a reason to it?
In ActiveMQ, you can view all the Active Durable Topic Subscribers, Offline
Durable Topic Subscribers, Active Non-Durable Topic Subscribers,
Topics/Queues on separate tabs. I know all of it can be done in Artemis as
well, but it just seems to be much better in terms of UI/X in ActiveMQ.

Thanks.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html

Re: ActiveMQ web console better than Artemis?

[Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu>]

What Clebert is saying is something along the lines of "If you have
concrete, specific improvements you'd like to see for the web console,
please submit them as JIRA enhancement requests, preferably with an
associated pull request that fixes them."

Also, keep in mind that UX preferences can be (not always, but sometimes)
personal/subjective, so if you're going to assert that a particular UX
change would be an improvement, you should explain why you think it's
better, since the people you're trying to convince may think that the
current version is good as it is.

Tim

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 5:11 PM artemisn00b <prahlad.misra@nokia.com wrote:

> <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/file/t379404/1.png>
>
> I meant something like this
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
>

Re: ActiveMQ web console better than Artemis?

[artemisn00b <pr...@nokia.com>]

<http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/file/t379404/1.png> 

I meant something like this



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html

Re: ActiveMQ web console better than Artemis?

[Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>]

I thought artemis is pretty good.


We accept pull requests thought ;)

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 8:15 PM artemisn00b <pr...@nokia.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was wondering why activemq's web console is much better, compared to
> artemis. Is there a reason to it?
> In ActiveMQ, you can view all the Active Durable Topic Subscribers, Offline
> Durable Topic Subscribers, Active Non-Durable Topic Subscribers,
> Topics/Queues on separate tabs. I know all of it can be done in Artemis as
> well, but it just seems to be much better in terms of UI/X in ActiveMQ.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
>
-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: ActiveMQ web console better than Artemis?

[artemisn00b <pr...@nokia.com>]

Thank you so much. It makes sense. This is what I was looking for :)



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html

Re: ActiveMQ web console better than Artemis?

[Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>]

I think there may be a bit of confusion about the presentation of the
information between the two consoles. The ActiveMQ 5.x console presents
information mainly in JMS terms (e.g. queues, topics, durable subscribers,
non-durable subscribers, etc.). However, Artemis was written from the
ground up to be a multi-protocol broker so it has a fundamental (i.e.
"core") addressing model that all the supported protocols map onto.
Therefore, the Artemis console presents information in terms of this "core"
addressing model. Not every protocol has the concept of durable subscribers
so it doesn't make a lot of sense to display information for those
protocols in those terms, and it also doesn't make sense to present
information for each protocol in a protocol specific fashion as that would
basically require a different admin console for each protocol which would
be a maintenance nightmare.

In your particular case, JMS durable subscriptions are implemented as
multicast queues on an address where the name of the address is the same as
the JMS topic and the name of the queue is the JMS client ID concatenated
with the subscription name using a "." character. So, for example, if you
created a durable subscription on topic "foo" with a client ID of
"myClientID" and a subscription name of "myDurableSub" then the address
would be named "foo" and the queue would be named
"myClientID.myDurableSub".  Non durable subscriptions are similar except
that the name of the queue will be a UUID. Therefore you could see what
durable and non-durable subscriptions existed on a particular topic by
looking at what queues exist. You can tell if the durable subscriber is
active by looking at the consumer count of the queue corresponding to the
durable subscription. If the consumer count is greater than 0 then the
subscriber is active. If the consumer count is 0 then the subscriber is
inactive. Non-durable subscribers are always active by definition since
their queues (i.e. their subscriptions) are deleted once they are inactive.


Justin

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 8:15 PM artemisn00b <pr...@nokia.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was wondering why activemq's web console is much better, compared to
> artemis. Is there a reason to it?
> In ActiveMQ, you can view all the Active Durable Topic Subscribers, Offline
> Durable Topic Subscribers, Active Non-Durable Topic Subscribers,
> Topics/Queues on separate tabs. I know all of it can be done in Artemis as
> well, but it just seems to be much better in terms of UI/X in ActiveMQ.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
>