activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined
Date Tue, 04 Feb 2014 14:58:06 GMT
James, I believe you yourself suggested in a previous mail to stop this 
conversation. I think it's the right thing to do as we now know where we 
stand.

We understand that you are disappointed, we understand that the *only* 
good solution is the technology you build outside the apartheid of the 
ASF the place where one cannot innovate. You made your opinions 
abundantly clear. It just so happens that we don't share your opinions. 
You will not be convincing no matter how much you'll insist on this 
tone. Therefore my strong suggestion is to either help contribute to fix 
whatever you think is lacking with our AMQ console or just let us do it.

Cheers,
Hadrian



On 01/31/2014 07:21 PM, James Strachan wrote:
> On Friday, January 31, 2014, artnaseef <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:
>
>> Another thing - "22Mb legacy turd" is not a technical argument (at least, I
>> don't recognize it as one).
>
> Memory usage is important to a message broker - which has to spool to disk
> as soon as it's out of RAM - which drastically affects performance. BTW
> that 22mb turd is just the compressed disk size of the code, never mind the
> runtime overhead
>
>
> I'm disappointed.
>> If there are concerns with maintenance, what are they?
>
>
> No one wants to maintain it for one; it's been dormant for years; plus it's
> kinda crappy.
>
> Second there's a much better solution now. Though It'll probably annoy you
> if I mention it out loud.
>
> Third, jolokia is probably enough these days for runtime sevices (nice,
> lean REST/JSON API to the mbeans). Any devops can knock
> themselves out with any script/tool/web page with that.
>
> BTW before the Savoir/Talend zealots jump in with further conspiracy
> theories; jolokia isn't a Fuse/Red Hat project at all, we've no committers.
> It's just a great, lean solution to the management issue.
>
>
>   I believe there are
>> currently only 3 outstanding Jira entries for the console.
>
> Look closer. But to be honest the code's been neglected with little
> community for so long, folks probably stopped raising anything but bugs &
> security issues many years ago
>
>
>
>> Right?  It's old
>> - so what, it's not older than ActiveMQ ;-).
>
> It's not far off really - but key pieces of ActiveMQ get rewritten &
> improved all the time (eg level db). The web console is the same old crap
> it's always been. I wrote quite a bit of it many years ago; I apologise for
> it profusely-  but it still deserves a sympathetic burial.
>
> Maybe struts 1.0 is up for a comeback too?
>
>
> I love that so many people are passionate about ActiveMQ.
>
>
> Me too!
>
>
>
>> I wish that
>> passion were being put into making it better and moving it forward
>
> Didn't you spot that quite a few of us have been putting our passion into a
> new amazing console for ActiveMQ, based on modern lightweight
> technology - that's
> not 21Mb of compressed turd?  Or do you just discount all open source
> projects without an Apache PMC in principle without even looking?
>
>
>
>> rather
>> than making arguments without merit and laying out criticism - very
>> disappointing.
>
> I'm disappointed you're disappointed
>
>
>
>> So, back to defining the problem.  All I've seen so far is the list of
>> security concerns from Hiram - thank you Hiram.  Anything else?  I do
>> believe I've read comments about difficulty maintaining it.  Is that true,
>> or just an exaggerated expression of frustration?
>
> When code is dying and losing its utility & before it's buried in the
> Attic, the compassionate thing to do is see if it can survive without life
> support. Moving it to a sub project seems the right thing to do. If you can
> attract a community around it - great, fair play to you. If not, the attic
> is ok too (most code will end up there one day, it's just a question of
> time).
>
> Apache is all about communty and right now I don't see any around the
> old web console code. Moving it to a sub project will settle the argument
> once and for all in a fair, Apache Way. Whatever the outcome, the community
> wins
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677224.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>


Mime
View raw message