On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:04 AM, John Doyle <jdoyle@redhat.com> wrote:

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:58 AM, John Sanda <jsanda@redhat.com> wrote:

On Apr 29, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Juraci Paixão Kröhling <jpkroehling@redhat.com> wrote:

On 29.04.2016 14:49, Heiko W.Rupp wrote:

On 29 Apr 2016, at 13:41, Juraci Paixão Kröhling wrote:

In the end, what people will see after this 5 minutes test is not what
Hawkular is.

So the clear suggestion and opinion here is to remove everything
that is not absolutely required by the ManageIQ integration?

Might be, I don't know. Here we cycle back to the question about the
purpose. What's Hawkular's purpose? If our purpose is to "provide
Middleware management to ManageIQ", then why not. There are so many
interesting things to be done at Middleware management that it's a shame
we'd spend so much time on other non-core stuff…

Before making a decision one way or another, I agree with Juca that we need to answer the question, what is the purpose of Hawkular now? Do we really have legitimate reasons to invest the time, effort, and resources not needed for the ManageIQ integration? Maybe we do. I don’t know. And personally, I don’t think simply growing/supporting the community is very good motivation.

It's hard to predict what the future will hold, but already we're
providing middleware metrics to openshift, and will be providing MW
mgmt to CF. There is also a shift happening with some of our long time
customers to stop delivering packaged applications to their customers
and transition to a SaaS model based upon subscriptions. If that is a
trend, then hawkular, headless or not would be a valuable piece in our
portfolio. I don't believe that "all management' will have to go
through CF for all cases.