activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>
Subject Re: Default Web Console
Date Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:13:46 GMT
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
dbosanac@redhat.com
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/


On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org> 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 <rajdavies@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:25 AM
> To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
> 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 <mattmann@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi James,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your quick reply!
> >>
> >>
> >> Some comments below:
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: James Strachan <james.strachan@gmail.com>
> >> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
> >> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:42 AM
> >> To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
> >> 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.
> >>> http://hawt.io/
> >>
> >> 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] http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#activemq
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 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
a
> >>>> product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with a web
> >>>> console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least to
> >>>>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 and
> >>>> 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 be
> >>>> addressed
> >>>> in various ways, so let's talk about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Chris
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> James
> >>> -------
> >>> Red Hat
> >>>
> >>> Email: jstracha@redhat.com
> >>> Web: http://fusesource.com
> >>> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
> >>> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
> >>>
> >>> Open Source Integration
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Rob Davies
> >‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹
> >Red Hat, Inc
> >http://hawt.io - #dontcha
> >Twitter: rajdavies
> >Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
> >ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
> >
>
>
>

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