activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Mattmann <>
Subject Re: Default Web Console
Date Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:01:19 GMT
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
(which that's great, glad to hear it) and that it's ALv2 licensed, as it
from what I can see that particular product has no Apache ActiveMQ, let
Apache branding on it at all, whereas the former old-not-really-maintained
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
Apache ActiveMQ PMC to make the products that it ships (which may include
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
major architectural elements to be something that in general is a bad
This is mostly because the Apache ActiveMQ PMC can only be responsible for
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
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
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
need to consider those things (not "you" specifically I'm using the royal
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
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
since it's great and blah blah; but step #2-N is to then skin it and make
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
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
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.



>On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <> 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
>Red Hat
>Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
>Open Source Integration

View raw message