activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From artnaseef <>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined
Date Tue, 04 Feb 2014 14:00:27 GMT
>> Got these:  Dormant.  Alternative exists (this is an external solution,
>> correct?).  Jolokia.
> Its not a UI though, its a library; there's no branding so no issue.


>> Why does it deserve a burial?  If it's old and unmaintained, then why is
>> it
>> a pain point?
> Its a big security risk, its a lousy console, it makes the project look
> bad
> and noone wants to maintain it any more - and it uses up a huge amount of
> space in RAM and in the distro.

I'm still not seeing strong evidence on this front.  On the security
front, I would argue that the best practice is not to open ActiveMQ to
untrusted parties - not even the OpenWire interface.  That reminds me that
I have a couple of jira entries to create.

On the "project look bad" front - have we had people state, "I refuse to
use ActiveMQ because its console stinks?"  Being almost exclusively a user
of ActiveMQ for many years, I never once felt the console was a negative
for the solution.  However, I did wish for improvements (like being able
to see full queue names in the Queue list-view).

I get the desire for  It honestly looks to me, though, like this
is really an attack to get rid of the current console and force the need
for a new one, with being the only existing alternative.

>>  As I've mentioned before, I've used it and still use it, and
>> see people posting statements that they are using it too.
> Thats fine - as a separate project folks can still include it in distros
> and use it.

Please keep working with me on this.  We can find a solution that will
satisfy everone.

View this message in context:
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message