activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Gale <paul.n.g...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Webconsole deprecation
Date Thu, 26 Apr 2018 18:41:15 GMT
So, are you saying therefore that if someone were to fix/patch some of the
outstanding issues with the web console then you'd be happy with not
deprecating it? After all, that would then satisfy the criteria that it's
being maintained, or is there something else?

Thanks,
Paul

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:

> Art,
>
> I think my main concern was stated in my first email and Justin
> re-iterated everything and is spot on.  The webconsole is just simply
> not maintained anymore which is why I proposed deprecating it.
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Clebert Suconic
> <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is not about opinions.. it's a fact.. people either fix it.. .or
> > deprecate it! Simple!
> >
> >
> > If no one is fixing it.. it will be deprecated.. I don't think this
> > even requires a voting as this is based in facts.. not opinions.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Arthur Naseef <art@amlinv.com> wrote:
> >> Hey Chris - I looked for you in the IRC channel but didn't see you
> (sorry
> >> if I missed you).
> >>
> >> I'd like to understand the concerns and talk to you about addressing
> them.
> >>
> >> Can you either enumerate the big concerns here, or give me a shout?
> IRC or
> >> email work.
> >>
> >> Art
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Paul,
> >>>
> >>> Yes it is mostly a people problem but that doesn't make it any less of
> >>> a problem.  It's still a big problem. Apache is a volunteer
> >>> organization.  You can't make anyone support something they don't want
> >>> to.  The reality is that no one wants to maintain it, there's been
> >>> several years of evidence to prove that.
> >>>
> >>> I would rather deprecate something and make it known it's not
> >>> maintained so at least people are aware of the risks involved with
> >>> using unmaintained software versus leaving things status quo and
> >>> pretending everything is fine when it isn't.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Paul Gale <paul.n.gale@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> > If the definition of 'the problem' is that no committers are willing
> to
> >>> > maintain the web console then that's an internal leadership problem
> of
> >>> the
> >>> > group. Please don't try to 'fix' that by making it a problem for end
> >>> users
> >>> > by deprecating/removing it. Why not address the problem of lack of
> >>> interest
> >>> > from a leadership perspective?
> >>> >
> >>> > So, if at any time in the future some popular feature/component of
> >>> ActiveMQ
> >>> > stops being maintained owing to lack of interest by committers,
> should
> >>> that
> >>> > necessarily qualify it to become deprecated/removed? I don't think
> so. As
> >>> > an end user with hundreds of deployed instances of ActiveMQ in
> Production
> >>> > it would be very annoying if the web console were to be deprecated.
> Let's
> >>> > face it when someone wants it to be 'deprecated' they just want to
> move
> >>> it
> >>> > one step closer to be being 'removed.' As an end user we've been
> screwed
> >>> > over a few times in the past with such decisions were made on a whim
> >>> > because something was convenient for committers; changing the use of
> >>> > activemq-all.jar springs to mind - that was big for us. Each time
> these
> >>> > incidents happen it only illustrates further that some committers
> are out
> >>> > of touch with the user base, or perhaps they're not but have a
> different
> >>> > agenda.
> >>> >
> >>> > AFAIK there doesn't appear to be a technical impediment for
> supporting
> >>> the
> >>> > web console, rather it seems to be a political one. It's a people
> >>> problem.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> > Paul
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Justin Bertram <
> jbertram@apache.org>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> > What changed since last opening this question?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> My understanding (based on Chris' email) is that nothing has changed
> >>> since
> >>> >> the last discussion, and that is precisely the problem.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > What problems are being solved by removing it?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I believe Chris is proposing that it be deprecated and disabled
by
> >>> default
> >>> >> rather than removed. The problem solved by this is ostensibly that
> users
> >>> >> would understand it is no longer maintained (i.e. de facto truth)
> and
> >>> that
> >>> >> there are risks associated with enabling it.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole
be
> >>> provided
> >>> >> to end-users?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Wouldn't users who want the functions provided by the web console
> could
> >>> >> still have them by enabling it (assuming they're willing to take
the
> >>> >> associated risks)?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Justin
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Arthur Naseef <art@amlinv.com>
> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > The ActiveMQ WebConsole fills a very important role in the
> solution.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > So here are the questions coming to mind when reading the
request
> for
> >>> >> > deprecation:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >    1. What changed since last opening this question?
> >>> >> >    2. What problems are being solved by removing it?
> >>> >> >    3. How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole
> be
> >>> >> >    provided to end-users?
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Here are some of the important functions:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >    - Quick view of broker status after initial installation
of
> broker,
> >>> >> >    helpful for new installations and for those learning to
use the
> >>> broker
> >>> >> > for
> >>> >> >    the first time.
> >>> >> >       - Greatly reduces time to get started using the broker
> >>> effectively
> >>> >> >    - Zero configuration, out-of-the-box Management Console
> >>> >> >    - Access to critical broker details, including:
> >>> >> >       - memory and store usage
> >>> >> >       - listing of queues and topics
> >>> >> >       - viewing connections to the broker
> >>> >> >       - viewing NOB connections
> >>> >> >    - Handy test utilities
> >>> >> >       - Browse queue contents
> >>> >> >       - Send messages
> >>> >> >    - Easy to instruct users on it's use to obtain important
> details
> >>> when
> >>> >> >    providing remote support
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > It would be great to have a meaningful discussion that moves
us
> >>> forward.
> >>> >> > Right now, this feels to me like a simple re-hash of the old
> >>> discussion.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Art
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >>> >> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation
or
> >>> >> > > removal conversation.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > I realize this conversation has been had multiple times
in the
> past
> >>> >> > > already.  However, since those conversations have taken
place
> there
> >>> >> > > has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole
> for
> >>> >> > > several years.  There continues to be reported bugs against
the
> web
> >>> >> > > console in jira and they are ignored.  People also submit
PRs to
> >>> >> > > improve the webconsole and they are ignored.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > In the past there has been a lot of pushback against
outright
> >>> removal
> >>> >> > > of the webconsole because there are people who find it
useful.
> I
> >>> >> > > think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be
to go the
> >>> >> > > LevelDB route.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that
it is not
> >>> >> > > maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable
it by
> >>> default)
> >>> >> > > but still include it so users have the option to turn
it on if
> they
> >>> >> > > want?
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>

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