activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <>
Subject Re: Default Web Console
Date Mon, 23 Dec 2013 03:14:01 GMT
While I agree that the console was never an architectural necessity, the 
reality is that it's very much in use today by pretty much every 
ActiveMQ user I know.

This thread was meant for a different purpose, I don't think it should 
be hijacked by a different discussion. If somebody feels strongly about 
removing the original console, I think that conversation should take 
place in a separate [discuss] thread, a deprecation time should be 
provided and an alternative (if any) presented.

My $0.02,

On 12/19/2013 02:52 PM, Robert Davies wrote:
> 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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the
>>>>>>> related to the recent change in the web console, where now it
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a
>>>>>>> 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 it.
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>> out,
>>>>>>> and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It
can be
>>>>>>> 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
> Blog:
> ActiveMQ in Action:

View raw message