activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Strachan <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined
Date Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:28:57 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



> 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


>
> 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 Kåveland 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

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