activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Strachan <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined
Date Sat, 01 Feb 2014 00:21:03 GMT
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.
>


-- 
James
-------
Red Hat

Email: jstracha@redhat.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message