Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-activemq-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E807610D8C for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:04:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 46337 invoked by uid 500); 19 Dec 2013 18:02:18 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-dev-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 46062 invoked by uid 500); 19 Dec 2013 18:02:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 45944 invoked by uid 99); 19 Dec 2013 18:02:08 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:02:08 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of chris.mattmann@gmail.com designates 209.85.192.180 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.192.180] (HELO mail-pd0-f180.google.com) (209.85.192.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:02:02 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q10so1421253pdj.39 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:01:41 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O7y52Y9pCyL/cQNHfAwhSzHgamzHxrV8I/lQ/DlTFRA=; b=TZ4VBu2qNXQ8ZkQ3mLaNzXZL2bu37aNu/f+8/jtW42e4Y6XqiDig77o9VnJNhj0wOp ztmmo9rEDcUOpQ411UBrA2ZC+OBpEuDvQD+U/haY4QKba3Z/0hVmyYawDXD/6kRf/cMV qIZ7YvtbNJxx1cY4B+Hy/6ySaKtMzF8YbZFaAU8zV6g1DfqjBwSkvd468iRdSPiWvpwq 5vKdAQ2HxuBOXTWW/GN5Ujrzr6VDuiluFQ2gef74jiC4aendYZbt+zEc6GTnEUtBDvbb VtMaBvvwuBIcRviEqYEydInIhDSHhImFFOy9RTCrMxEEbtbQGzsigox0Ut7JjQUDSLen whKA== X-Received: by 10.66.216.129 with SMTP id oq1mr3140259pac.75.1387476101455; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:01:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [137.79.16.80] ([137.79.16.80]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qz9sm8836691pbc.3.2013.12.19.10.01.33 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:01:40 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:01:19 -0800 Subject: Re: Default Web Console From: Chris Mattmann To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Default Web Console References: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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. >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 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