activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: About releases and bugs
Date Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:56:26 GMT
On 6/28/07, Tom Samplonius <tom@samplonius.org> wrote:
>
>   I have to agree with most of this.  ActiveMQ is a buggy as hell.

Thats a bit of an exaggeration & a comment thats hardly likely to get
the volunteers on the list to help you solve your particular issues.


>   In my testing, I'd have to say ActiveMQ 4.1.1 is completely unusable in production.
 I'm told that it is used in production somewhere, but I suspect the usage is extremely narrow.

Its used in production by many companies right now in heaps of
different scenarios. Just because your exact requirements are not met
100% does not imply that many other people are not using the project
to great effect


> I'd like to know what usage actually works.  So if you are using ActiveMQ in production,
how are you using it?
>
>   The show-stopping bugs in 4.1.1 are:
>
> - ActiveMQ loses unacked messages if a Stomp client disconnects without an explicit DISCONNECT
(fixed in 4.2-something)
>
> - Stomp server does not support authentication.  It is completely wide-open.  And the
default install has a Stomp listener running, so ActiveMQ is wide open if you have Stomp enabled
(there is an unofficial patch, but I don't think this one will even be fixed in 5.0).


So you've found 2 issues with the stomp support (which BTW is a
totally optional feature); one is already fixed as you say and another
is a pretty trivial fix and is really just a vunerability of someone
writing a bad stomp client (when most folks use stomp and ActiveMQ
inside the firewall).

So rather than moaining about the sky falling; why don't you try fix
the one bug you have?
http://activemq.apache.org/contributing.html

Open source doesn't really work by moaning or spreading FUD about a
project; it works by contributing.


>   A lot of the ActiveMQ components aren't merely buggy, but simply don't work.

Oh please.


> Authentication and security should be mandatory, but the ActiveMQ.Agent feature doesn't
work if auth is enabled.

I'm not aware of any any MOM where authentication and security are
mandatory out of the box; its usually always something you configure
using whatever technologies you like.


> Neither does the Web Console queueBrowser.  These components should be move to a sandbox.

Huh?


>   There is pretty clear theme in the ActiveMQ development.  Authentication and security
are an afterthought.  Like seriously an afterthought, as in after the release is cut.
>
>   I'm amazed that ActiveMQ made it out of Apache incubation.

Thanks for those helpful comments Tom

-- 
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Mime
View raw message