activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Console - moving toward a solution (starting with brainstorming)
Date Tue, 04 Feb 2014 16:08:20 GMT

On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:31 AM, artnaseef <> wrote:

> With the "problem definition" having collected a decent amount of
> information, let's start talking about where we want to be and possible ways
> to solve the problems.
> Before starting, this is "brainstorming".  So please, feel free to share any
> ideas without concern for absurdity.  And please be respectful of others
> sharing.  That means, provide actionable feedback, or perceptions, of the
> content of the idea and try to avoid pure criticism (negative feedback
> that's unactionable) and personal attacks.  We will filter the ideas later.
> First off, I want to argue that the solution to security concerns with the
> console, and the rest of ActiveMQ, is to pursue the best practice of not
> exposing ActiveMQ to untrusted sources.  So the following guidelines for
> ActiveMQ installations follow:
> * Avoid placing ActiveMQ's web console on the internet, or otherwise making
> it accessible to untrusted parties, by placing it behind firewalls and
> requiring internal network access or VPN access to reach the console.
> * Avoid opening ActiveMQ's transports to the internet, or otherwise making
> them accessible to untrusted parties to the extent possible, again using
> firewalls and network precautions.
> * Where absolutely necessary, using SSL with required client-certificates
> can greatly reduce security risks.  Any brokers whose SSL connectors are
> accessible to untrusted parties should also incorporate firewall protections
> to prevent access to other, non-SSL-secured ports on the same ActiveMQ
> instances.
> Should we do anything more on this front?

This sounds mostly like documentation things.   That definitely brings up the point that the
docs at:

need some major updates.  I’d certainly start with removing all the references to ActiveMQ
4.  :-)

> For the "buggy" issue - I recommend to start fixing it.  Without any
> evidence that the time and effort to maintain the console is significant, it
> seems like this is more an issue of lack of motivation.  I'll start working
> on the bugs myself.

I’m happy to help as well.   I’ll start by getting the issues Tim brought up assigned
to the we console component.   

Does everyone have access to assign themselves issues in JIRA?  If not, let me know and I
can help out making sure people can do so.

> For look-and-feel, what makes sense?  I like the idea of a built-in console
> that is minimalistic - making it easy to navigate and get specific content,
> and having it consistent for everyone to make talking about their
> experiences, especially when reporting problems, straight-forward.  Note
> that does not mean I'm against a major change to look-and-feel.  And, a nice
> looking UI is awesome to have.  Should we promote the use of third-party
> UIs?  If so, how can we do so in a way that is acceptable to everyone?  Or,
> should we put in some effort on the built-in console - giving it a facelift
> while still keeping to a more streamlined/information-focused than something
> like

I also would prefer a very stream lined ActiveMQ specific interface as well.   I’m certainly
OK with just a simple facelift if we fell thats needed, but I’m not even sure that is needed.

Daniel Kulp -
Talend Community Coder -

View raw message