activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From artnaseef <...@artnaseef.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined
Date Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:38:58 GMT
>
>
> On Friday, January 31, 2014, artnaseef <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>
>> This discussion is regarding amq and the webconsole.
>
>
> I am aware of that.
>
>
>
>> The state of hawt.io really has no bearing on the discussion as it is
>> not
>> part of amq.
>>
>
> I think you missed my point - see below
>
>
>
>> There are solid reasons amq needs a console.
>
>
> I'm not convinced at all - jolokia is enough -but let's move on

Why move on - this is the important part of the discussion, is it not?

>
>
>
>> Please leave hawt.io out of the discussion.
>
>
> I only mentioned hawtio as a perfect example to refute JamesC's weak
> argument that there is any technical reason for forcing the old
> abandoned JSP console to be on the same release schedule and svn directory
> as the java broker. If there wasn't a weak argument to refute, I wouldn't
> have said anything.
>
> Chill out - its ok to mention technologies that don't have an apache PMC
> when debating a technical issue. We're not yet living in Apache Aparteid
> where we can only refer to projects of a certain governance colour
>

No worries - we're all good.

Let me rephrase what I was saying - the existence of hawt.io has no
bearing on a discussion of technical merit in removing the existing
webconsole from activemq, so let's please leave that out of the arguments
for or against such a change.  Please feel free to talk about Hawt.io as
much as you like otherwise!  Just be aware that if it's done in a way that
distracts from the discussion, I'll likely say something.  Nothing
personal - just trying to keep the discussion focused and moving forward.

Honestly, I thought JamesC was asking a great question and was
disappointed to not see a great response.

Cheers!


>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:00 PM, "James Strachan-2 [via ActiveMQ]" <
>> ml-node+s2283324n4677218h6@n4.nabble.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >
>> > LOL. Nice try James.
>> >
>> > Check out the current plugins for hawtio:
>> > http://hawt.io/plugins/index.html
>> >
>> > we've worked pretty well with every version of pretty much every
>> decent
>> > open source software library from camel / cxf / activemq / karaf /
>> tomcat /
>> > jetty / osgi / git / fabric8 / osgi / jmx / quartz - by being a stand
>> alone
>> > separate project. And the hawtio ActiveMQ tooling is way beyond
>> anything
>> in
>> > the old console. Open source projects can actually, you know,
>> collaborate.
>> >
>> > There's really no technical reason to force a 22Mb legacy turd into
>> the
>> > ActiveMQ broker project or distro.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 31 January 2014 18:41, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Right, but you were at the mercy of what was currently exposed.
>> > > Adding new functionality would involve instrumenting it in the
>> MBeans
>> > > (if it's not already there of course).  That's the key reason they
>> > > shouldn't be separated.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Robin KÃ¥veland Hansen <[hidden
>> email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > I will try write up some thoughts on this later, but I have a
>> pretty
>> > > strong
>> > > > opinion that the responsibility of the broker is only to offer an
>> API
>> > > that
>> > > > a web console may use. At my current client we wrote a web console
>> using
>> > > > the jmx api. This lets us use a different JVM for the webapp,
>> minimising
>> > > > the risk that an error in it will affect the service of the most
>> critical
>> > > > piece of infrastructure on our platform. It also lets us monitor
>> and
>> work
>> > > > on messages on brokers that are not in a network from the same
>> webapp. I
>> > > > don't know what things are like now, but this was difficult back
>> in
>> 5.5.
>> > > >
>> > > > If this is interesting to people I can probably share a lot of
>> thoughts
>> > > and
>> > > > ideas about the web console.
>> > > > On Jan 31, 2014 6:14 PM, "Hiram Chirino" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> The core ActiveMQ is all about message passing.  The skill set
>> needed
>> > > >> for that is a bit different than the one need to design and build
>> > > >> beautiful, modern web applications.  Perhaps folks have just been
>> > > >> focused in areas where they feel they can contribute best to.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Carman
>> > > >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >> > Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console? 
Did
>> folks
>> > > >> > just lose interest?  Why was it neglected?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino <
>> > > [hidden email]>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek
at the
>> CVE
>> > > >> >> reported against ActiveMQ in the past.  Notice most deal
with
>> the old
>> > > >> >> console:
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic
>> status
>> > > >> >> refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing
today.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden
email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> >>> Reading through the arguments for and against removal
of the
>> current
>> > > >> console,
>> > > >> >>> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.
>> Positions
>> are
>> > > >> hard to
>> > > >> >>> understand, and options unclear.
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely
defined,
>> then
>> > > >> discuss
>> > > >> >>> the merits of each position, and then go back to
proposing
>> > > solutions.
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> So, what are the problems?
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> --
>> > > >> >>> View this message in context:
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html
>> > > >> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive
at
>> Nabble.com.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> --
>> > > >> >> Hiram Chirino
>> > > >> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > > >> >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > > >> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> Hiram Chirino
>> > > >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > > >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > > >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > James
>> > -------
>> > Red Hat
>> >
>> > Email: [hidden email]
>> > Web: http://fusesource.com
>> > Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
>> > Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>> >
>> > Open Source Integration
>> >
>> >
>> > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the
>> discussion
>> below:
>> >
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677218.html
>> > To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email
>> ml-node+s2283324n2368404h72@n4.nabble.com <javascript:;>
>> > To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined,
>> click here.
>> > NAML
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677221.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> --
> James
> -------
> Red Hat
>
> Email: jstracha@redhat.com
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>
> Open Source Integration
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677244.html
> To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email
> ml-node+s2283324n2368404h72@n4.nabble.com
> To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined,
> visit
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=4677105&code=YXJ0QGFydG5hc2VlZi5jb218NDY3NzEwNXwtMjA1NDcyNjY5MQ==





--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677246.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message