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 Tue, 04 Feb 2014 14:38:34 GMT
Ah - good point. I was focusing on the problem definition. 

Now I think that's pretty much done (minus some refining) so I opened up to talking solutions.


My mistake. I will start another thread when I get back to a computer.

Thank you Claus. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 4, 2014, at 7:20 AM, "Claus Ibsen [via ActiveMQ]" <ml-node+s2283324n4677397h55@n4.nabble.com>
wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:51 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote: 
> > This discussion is regarding amq and the webconsole. The state of hawt.io really
has no bearing on the discussion as it is not part of amq. 
> > 
> > There are solid reasons amq needs a console. 
> > 
> > Please leave hawt.io out of the discussion. 
> > 
> 
> Arthur was it not YOU who wanted to keep this thread only about the 
> original AMQ web console. 
> Maybe you can start with yourself. 
> 
> 
> > Sent from my iPhone 
> > 
> >> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:00 PM, "James Strachan-2 [via ActiveMQ]" <[hidden
email]> 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 [hidden email] 
> >> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Claus Ibsen 
> ----------------- 
> Red Hat, Inc. 
> Email: [hidden email] 
> Twitter: davsclaus 
> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
> Make your Camel applications look hawt, try: http://hawt.io
> 
> 
> 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-tp4677105p4677397.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, click here.
> NAML




--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677400.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message