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 15:47:51 GMT
Art, can we please just drop it? This horse is gone.
Let's go back and focus on the code. Looking forward to your contributions.
Hadrian


On 02/04/2014 10:38 AM, artnaseef wrote:
> Hadrian,
>
> I apologize for keeping the discussion alive, even when some of the
> discussion may be painful.  With that said, can we continue to discuss it,
> letting go of what's done?
>
> My hope is that we can, as a community, decide on a path forward that
> meets all of the needs and opens the door to go past that.  For example,
> if someone wants to come improve the webconsole, it would be good to have
> clarity on what is acceptible and not acceptible for such an effort.
>
> I see James is frustrated, as are a lot of people passionate about
> ActiveMQ and Hawt.io.  I'm getting frustrated just reading the comments!
> I hope to see the frustration fade out and see it be replaced with action,
> and keeping the passion for ActiveMQ alive!
>
> -art
>
>>
>> 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.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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-tp4677105p4677404.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-tp4677105p4677406.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message