activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>
Subject Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console
Date Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:00:04 GMT
In my opinion, this "control issue" is totally overblown. First of all,
we're not some newcomers trying to put a malware into the project. We're
people that are developing this project for the last 5-7 years and are
trying to position it better for the future, by replacing its most obsolete
component.

But most importantly, you put it as if Apache releases are totally
uncontrollable and anybody can sneak into it anything they want. But you
know well that's not the case, as we use proper releases of other projects
and all "skinning" is done here. Additionally, every release is voted. So
there's no chance of any misuse at the release time and once it's released
it can't be changed. What happens when a project we use loses its track? We
deal with that at that point (find a replacement, fork and continue
developing, etc.) and it's the same for Spring, Jetty, HawtIO or any other
part. So the "risk of losing control" is not valid neither from technical
nor project image standpoint.

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 Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:

> inline
>
> On 21 January 2014 17:36, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 21, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 21 January 2014 16:30, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2) All the ActiveMQ related code needs to be moved into the ActiveMQ
> project.   If someone is using ActiveMQ and wants to contribute changes to
> how the console looks or displays items or such, they should be making
> contributions to ActiveMQ, not some external community (open source, free,
> or otherwise).   The hawt.io “framework” of libraries and such can remain
> outside, but the ActiveMQ specific portions needs to be part of this
> community.   If it’s going to be the visible frontend of this project, we
> need to make sure it drives the developer willing to contribute
> enhancements into ActiveMQ.
> >>>
> >> This is putting the cart before the horse!
> >> If we need some changes and if we can't make contributions to hawtio
> >> (patches, issues etc) we can deal with that by building our own plugin
> >> or throwing it out or whatever. But why do that now?
> >
> > You are basically asking THIS developer community to completely give up
> control over how ActiveMQ is presented to the users to a different
> community.   I personally cannot think of anything much worse for this
> community than that.   That seems like a horrible idea from an Apache
> community standpoint.
> >
> That is not what I am asking.
> How can choosing to adopt a better solution to an open problem be
> giving up control? We can always change our minds and throw it out if
> it does not serve our needs. The PMC will always be in control of what
> is released.
>
>
> > The goals of the Apache communities needs to be to make sure developers
> are driven into the Apache communities, not another community.
> Any goal that hopes to drive developers is a non starter. Developers
> choose, they are not driven. I am suggesting we make a sensible choice
> that helps our community by giving it a better web ui. hawtio wants to
> have the best activemq web console, we want to ship the best activemq
> console. The stars are aligned. If the alignment falters we address
> that.
>
> >
> >> We don't have to own everything that makes activemq better and that
> >> makes our users experience better, we just have to ensure that it is
> >> better.
> >
> > Making the user experience better is certainly an important aspect of
> the Apache communities, but the primary focus should be on making sure the
> developer community is healthy and we aren’t driving potential developers
> elsewhere.   That NEEDS to be the most important thing at this point,
> especially with the current active makeup of this community.
> >
> > In particular, since Apache is a 503b charitable non-profit foundation,
> we cannot be used to promote other communities, particularly those “owned”
> by a for-profit entity.  (open source or otherwise, that’s somewhat
> irrelevant)
> >
> > Anyway, as far as *I’m* concerned (but I’m not a member of this PMC,
> just an interested party), if the hawt.io community is unwilling or
> unable to support the ActiveMQ community to allow ActiveMQ to maintain
> control over it’s user experience, then there is no-point engaging with
> them.  It is a waste of time.
> >
> > That said, if hawt.io community want to create a full distribution of
> ActiveMQ + hawt.io to make life easier for users, they certainly are
> welcome to do so as long as it’s not branded ActiveMQ.  (and again, not
> something to be promoted here)
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >> If the hawt.io  community is unwilling (or unable) to do the second
> part, then, IMO, #3 is a non-starter.  If they ARE willing to do that, then
> great.   Lets start figuring out how to get that done.   But that’s
> something that would  need to be discussed on their side first.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> There are a lot of 0s and +1s for option [3] and two -1s
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me make a case for it to try and get consensus around it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I want to 'replace' the existing web console with something better.
> >>>> For configuration activemq did not build a dependency injection
> >>>> framework, we shipped spring.
> >>>> Learning from that, it does not make sense to me that we build and
> >>>> maintain a html5 web console.
> >>>>
> >>>> An admin/management web front end based over our extensive JMX api
> >>>> sounds perfect but it needs
> >>>> a community to evolve and improve it. We (activemq committers) have
> >>>> proven that we need help in that area.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyone what to change their vote or further expand on the technical
> >>>> reasons we should not be branding hatwio?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 17 January 2014 13:33, Robert Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>>>> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because
> opinion has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move
> towards consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can
> we keep it to binding votes only ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy
> to deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
> >>>>> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have
> a second distribution with the original console
> >>>>> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
> >>>>> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here’s my vote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]. +1
> >>>>> [2]  0
> >>>>> [3] 0
> >>>>> [4] -1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rob
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> http://redhat.com
> >>>> http://blog.garytully.com
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Daniel Kulp
> >>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://redhat.com
> >> http://blog.garytully.com
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://redhat.com
> http://blog.garytully.com
>

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