activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Davies <>
Subject Re: Default Web Console
Date Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:52:44 GMT
Agree - the console functionality has never been an architectural necessity, if it was the
original console would have been maintained or re-written long, long ago

On 19 Dec 2013, at 19:13, Dejan Bosanac <> wrote:

> I'm also for removing the old web console no matter what people decide
> about hawtio. There's a lot of tools out there that can be used to monitor
> the broker, which are far better than this old web console. The web console
> is pain to maintain in its current state and virtually impossible to
> refactor (without complete rewrite) to support new features.
> Regards
> --
> Dejan Bosanac
> ----------------------
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> Twitter: @dejanb
> Blog:
> ActiveMQ in Action:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Chris Mattmann <> wrote:
>> Hi Robert,
>> That would be a fine decision by me, and then if at some point
>> the Apache ActiveMQ PMC desired to make a console that they wanted
>> to maintain (or some subset of the PMC/committers wanted to maintain)
>> and keep up with Apache branding/etc., that could be done later and
>> when there is time.
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robert Davies <>
>> Reply-To: <>
>> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:25 AM
>> To: <>
>> Subject: Re: Default Web Console
>>> The old console is really getting to a point of not being maintainable -
>>> so ideally it should be removed - and as ActiveMQ¹s main focus is to be
>>> just a message broker it would be easier not to ship one at all (IIRC the
>>> majority of security issues for the ActiveMQ project have been  console
>>> related). I¹m all for user experience  but we could just take the
>>> decision to not ship any console what so ever and just direct folks to a
>>> list of 3rd party consoles ?
>>> On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:01, Chris Mattmann <> wrote:
>>>> Hi James,
>>>> Thanks for your quick reply!
>>>> Some comments below:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: James Strachan <>
>>>> Reply-To: <>
>>>> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:42 AM
>>>> To: <>
>>>> Subject: Re: Default Web Console
>>>>> Hey Chris
>>>>> So hawtio is a ASL licensed community open source project; its not a
>>>>> company product or commercial tool. There are committers from different
>>>>> companies on it.
>>>> Gotcha, OK. That being said, even if hawtio is a community supported
>>>> project
>>>> (which that's great, glad to hear it) and that it's ALv2 licensed, as it
>>>> stands
>>>> from what I can see that particular product has no Apache ActiveMQ, let
>>>> alone
>>>> Apache branding on it at all, whereas the former
>>>> old-not-really-maintained
>>>> console
>>>> has Apache branding all over it. Is the hawtio product customizable?
>>>> Does
>>>> it allow skinning?
>>>> If it does that's one thing; and an incremental step that can be taken
>>>> by
>>>> the
>>>> Apache ActiveMQ PMC to make the products that it ships (which may
>>>> include
>>>> dependencies
>>>> on software that enhance user experience) respect the fact that they are
>>>> Apache products.
>>>> Beyond skinning, the Apache ActiveMQ PMC should also consider strong
>>>> dependencies on external products that aren't supporting products, but
>>>> in
>>>> fact
>>>> major architectural elements to be something that in general is a bad
>>>> practice.
>>>> This is mostly because the Apache ActiveMQ PMC can only be responsible
>>>> for
>>>> stewarding
>>>> the software that it produces. Thought hawtio is community led, and
>>>> though
>>>> it's ALv2
>>>> licensed, it's not the ActiveMQ PMC and thus subject to its own
>>>> committers
>>>> and PMC
>>>> members itches that they are scratching, and subject to its own release
>>>> schedule
>>>> and ultimately subject to its own merit and stewardship. So, ultimately
>>>> it's different,
>>>> and having strong dependencies from Apache products on external elements
>>>> outside of
>>>> the stewardship of the PMC is certainly allowed but it just introduces
>>>> checks and
>>>> balances both social, and technical (as well as political too from what
>>>> I've seen)
>>>> that ultimately in the end create more work. I realize that folks may
>>>> wear
>>>> different
>>>> hats, and may wear multiple hats (for example, are there are hawtio
>>>> community members
>>>> who are also Apache ActiveMQ PMC members here? if so, please let me
>>>> know)
>>>> - but
>>>> when you're at the ASF you need to wear you're ASF hat over here. So you
>>>> just
>>>> need to consider those things (not "you" specifically I'm using the
>>>> royal
>>>> "you"
>>>> referring to the ActiveMQ PMC members over here in ASF land).
>>>>> but if folks are worried about having a console from a different open
>>>>> source project inside ActiveMQ we can easily rip it out; it was only
>>>>> added
>>>>> to try give users a better experience of using ActiveMQ (particularly
>>>>> as
>>>>> the old-not-really-maintained console sucks ass & is huge).
>>>> Sure, I'm not worried about having a different console per se -- in
>>>> fact,
>>>> I have no technical merit here in ActiveMQ land, so I don't really have
>>>> a
>>>> say -- I'm over here as an ASF director b/c I've seen and heard things
>>>> that
>>>> indicate to me that not only is the Apache ActiveMQ PMC taking technical
>>>> steps that don't respect the Apache brand, but there are also technical
>>>> connections being made to external software products where some of the
>>>> corporate influence issues I've seen in the past are coming up.
>>>> In response to the above about the comment about the existing
>>>> old-not-really-
>>>> maintained console "sucking ass", I would ask as an ASF member and
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> PMC member per [1], wouldn't the goal then to be to make an Apache
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> branded console that doesn't? If your answer is, step #1 was to
>>>> introduce
>>>> hawtio
>>>> since it's great and blah blah; but step #2-N is to then skin it and
>>>> make
>>>> it
>>>> Apache branded, etc., then that's a start at a roadmap to get in line
>>>> with
>>>> what I would expect of an ASF PMC led by people who care about the ASF.
>>>> Beyond that, I would also ask you as an ASF member and Apache ActiveMQ
>>>> PMC member -- do you think it's a good idea to have dependencies on
>>>> something
>>>> as critical as user experience on software that isn't stewarded by the
>>>> Apache ActiveMQ PMC and maintained on ASF bits and hardware?
>>>> hawtio has every right to exist and should I'm not saying it shouldn't,
>>>> but typically
>>>> the way that works it that upstream or downstream software products to
>>>> the
>>>> ASF
>>>> build on our ASF software and then may commercialize, etc or sell it but
>>>> that has to be different software since the ASF isn't a company and we
>>>> exist to provide open source software for the public good.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Chris
>>>> [1]
>>>>> On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <>
>>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>>> First let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Mattmann and I'm
>>>>>> currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the goings-on
>>>>>> related to the recent change in the web console, where now it appears
>>>>>> the first link on a standard deployment of ActiveMQ and its web
>>>>>> console
>>>>>> points to a web console from hawtio.
>>>>>> I don't really have any skin in the game on which company built what,
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a decade
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a number
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the ASF's largest projects.
>>>>>> I *do* however have a problem that the ActiveMQ PMC now is stewarded
>>>>>> product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with
a web
>>>>>> console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> a specific company's product *hawtio web console*.
>>>>>> With my Director hat on -- this is unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
>>>>>> So let's discuss how this came about, and what can be done to fix
>>>>>> I don't have time and haven't read through all the prior history
>>>>>> threads, but I'm happy to read through links folks have for me to
>>>>>> check
>>>>>> out,
>>>>>> and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It can
>>>>>> addressed
>>>>>> in various ways, so let's talk about it.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>> --
>>>>> James
>>>>> -------
>>>>> Red Hat
>>>>> Email:
>>>>> Web:
>>>>> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
>>>>> Blog:
>>>>> Open Source Integration
>>> Rob Davies
>>> ‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹
>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>> - #dontcha
>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>> Blog:
>>> ActiveMQ in Action:

Rob Davies
Red Hat, Inc - #dontcha
Twitter: rajdavies
ActiveMQ in Action:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message