ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
43 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

artnaseef
Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the current console, or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.  Positions are hard to understand, and options unclear.

I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined, then discuss the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing solutions.

So, what are the problems?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

artnaseef
Come now - there's so much heated debate about the solution. What's the problem?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

chirino
In reply to this post by artnaseef
As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the CVE
reported against ActiveMQ in the past.  Notice most deal with the old
console:

http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html

It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic status
refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today.


On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the current console,
> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.  Positions are hard to
> understand, and options unclear.
>
> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined, then discuss
> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing solutions.
>
> So, what are the problems?
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

James Carman
Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console?  Did folks
just lose interest?  Why was it neglected?

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the CVE
> reported against ActiveMQ in the past.  Notice most deal with the old
> console:
>
> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html
>
> It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic status
> refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the current console,
>> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.  Positions are hard to
>> understand, and options unclear.
>>
>> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined, then discuss
>> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing solutions.
>>
>> So, what are the problems?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

artnaseef
In reply to this post by chirino
Great list - thanks!  I have some thoughts on that list, but will hold off until we have more "problem definition" here.

Is there anything else.  This question is for everyone, not just the folks trying to remove the webconsole.

I'll put one out there.  I'm concerned with not having a webconsole in the core of ActiveMQ as it is an essential feature, in my experience.  Especially when helping others with problems.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

chirino
In reply to this post by James Carman
The core ActiveMQ is all about message passing.  The skill set needed
for that is a bit different than the one need to design and build
beautiful, modern web applications.  Perhaps folks have just been
focused in areas where they feel they can contribute best to.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Carman
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console?  Did folks
> just lose interest?  Why was it neglected?
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the CVE
>> reported against ActiveMQ in the past.  Notice most deal with the old
>> console:
>>
>> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html
>>
>> It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic status
>> refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the current console,
>>> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.  Positions are hard to
>>> understand, and options unclear.
>>>
>>> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined, then discuss
>>> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing solutions.
>>>
>>> So, what are the problems?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino



--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

artnaseef
Having an option of a nice-looking console like hawt.io is nice for users. But removing the webconsole is about more than that. 

The number one benefit of the webconsole, in my experience, is getting information about the state of the broker quickly and easily - especially for folk that are new to ActiveMQ.  In that regard, pretty isn't too important, right?

Here's a "problem description" or requirement -- users need a means to see the state of destinations, including the lists of existing destinations, and message stats, which can tell them whether messages are moving across the brokers as needed, and moving to/from amq clients as expected. 

One complaint that dogged me over time was the "our clients are not recieving messages.". We need an easy way to get more info to solve those cases - especially new folks doing their technology selection who are new and trying to prove or disprove that AMQ does the job. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 31, 2014, at 10:37 AM, "chirino [via ActiveMQ]" <[hidden email]> wrote:

The core ActiveMQ is all about message passing.  The skill set needed
for that is a bit different than the one need to design and build
beautiful, modern web applications.  Perhaps folks have just been
focused in areas where they feel they can contribute best to.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Carman
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console?  Did folks
> just lose interest?  Why was it neglected?
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the CVE
>> reported against ActiveMQ in the past.  Notice most deal with the old
>> console:
>>
>> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html
>>
>> It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic status
>> refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the current console,
>>> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.  Positions are hard to
>>> understand, and options unclear.
>>>
>>> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined, then discuss
>>> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing solutions.
>>>
>>> So, what are the problems?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino


--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino



If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677197.html
To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined, click here.
NAML
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

Robin Kåveland Hansen
In reply to this post by chirino
I will try write up some thoughts on this later, but I have a pretty strong
opinion that the responsibility of the broker is only to offer an API that
a web console may use. At my current client we wrote a web console using
the jmx api. This lets us use a different JVM for the webapp, minimising
the risk that an error in it will affect the service of the most critical
piece of infrastructure on our platform. It also lets us monitor and work
on messages on brokers that are not in a network from the same webapp. I
don't know what things are like now, but this was difficult back in 5.5.

If this is interesting to people I can probably share a lot of thoughts and
ideas about the web console.
On Jan 31, 2014 6:14 PM, "Hiram Chirino" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The core ActiveMQ is all about message passing.  The skill set needed
> for that is a bit different than the one need to design and build
> beautiful, modern web applications.  Perhaps folks have just been
> focused in areas where they feel they can contribute best to.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Carman
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console?  Did folks
> > just lose interest?  Why was it neglected?
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the CVE
> >> reported against ActiveMQ in the past.  Notice most deal with the old
> >> console:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html
> >>
> >> It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic status
> >> refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the current
> console,
> >>> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.  Positions are
> hard to
> >>> understand, and options unclear.
> >>>
> >>> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined, then
> discuss
> >>> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing solutions.
> >>>
> >>> So, what are the problems?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html
> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Hiram Chirino
> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

Robin Kåveland Hansen
Just noticed that other thread, you can probably disregard the message from
before. I seem to be slightly offtopic.
On Jan 31, 2014 7:32 PM, "Robin Kåveland Hansen" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I will try write up some thoughts on this later, but I have a pretty
> strong opinion that the responsibility of the broker is only to offer an
> API that a web console may use. At my current client we wrote a web console
> using the jmx api. This lets us use a different JVM for the webapp,
> minimising the risk that an error in it will affect the service of the most
> critical piece of infrastructure on our platform. It also lets us monitor
> and work on messages on brokers that are not in a network from the same
> webapp. I don't know what things are like now, but this was difficult back
> in 5.5.
>
> If this is interesting to people I can probably share a lot of thoughts
> and ideas about the web console.
> On Jan 31, 2014 6:14 PM, "Hiram Chirino" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The core ActiveMQ is all about message passing.  The skill set needed
>> for that is a bit different than the one need to design and build
>> beautiful, modern web applications.  Perhaps folks have just been
>> focused in areas where they feel they can contribute best to.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Carman
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console?  Did folks
>> > just lose interest?  Why was it neglected?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the CVE
>> >> reported against ActiveMQ in the past.  Notice most deal with the old
>> >> console:
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html
>> >>
>> >> It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic status
>> >> refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the current
>> console,
>> >>> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.  Positions are
>> hard to
>> >>> understand, and options unclear.
>> >>>
>> >>> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined, then
>> discuss
>> >>> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing solutions.
>> >>>
>> >>> So, what are the problems?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html
>> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Hiram Chirino
>> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

James Carman
In reply to this post by Robin Kåveland Hansen
Right, but you were at the mercy of what was currently exposed.
Adding new functionality would involve instrumenting it in the MBeans
(if it's not already there of course).  That's the key reason they
shouldn't be separated.

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Robin Kåveland Hansen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I will try write up some thoughts on this later, but I have a pretty strong
> opinion that the responsibility of the broker is only to offer an API that
> a web console may use. At my current client we wrote a web console using
> the jmx api. This lets us use a different JVM for the webapp, minimising
> the risk that an error in it will affect the service of the most critical
> piece of infrastructure on our platform. It also lets us monitor and work
> on messages on brokers that are not in a network from the same webapp. I
> don't know what things are like now, but this was difficult back in 5.5.
>
> If this is interesting to people I can probably share a lot of thoughts and
> ideas about the web console.
> On Jan 31, 2014 6:14 PM, "Hiram Chirino" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The core ActiveMQ is all about message passing.  The skill set needed
>> for that is a bit different than the one need to design and build
>> beautiful, modern web applications.  Perhaps folks have just been
>> focused in areas where they feel they can contribute best to.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Carman
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console?  Did folks
>> > just lose interest?  Why was it neglected?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the CVE
>> >> reported against ActiveMQ in the past.  Notice most deal with the old
>> >> console:
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html
>> >>
>> >> It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic status
>> >> refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the current
>> console,
>> >>> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.  Positions are
>> hard to
>> >>> understand, and options unclear.
>> >>>
>> >>> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined, then
>> discuss
>> >>> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing solutions.
>> >>>
>> >>> So, what are the problems?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html
>> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Hiram Chirino
>> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

artnaseef
Having a means for custom consoles to be built is nice.  Having a standard console is still valuable, even essential in my opinion. 

First off, people new to AMQ should not need to develop a console, and for quick adoption, need one out of the box. In addition, reports of problems seen on a custom console are more difficult to resolve. For one thing, amq maintainers have to wonder if there is a bug in the custom code, or even introduced into amq by a contract-violating console, or even just a latent amq bug triggered by one. 

Having a standard console means we can easily see the same experiences and fix any cause of problems. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 31, 2014, at 11:43 AM, "James Carman [via ActiveMQ]" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Right, but you were at the mercy of what was currently exposed.
Adding new functionality would involve instrumenting it in the MBeans
(if it's not already there of course).  That's the key reason they
shouldn't be separated.

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Robin Kåveland Hansen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I will try write up some thoughts on this later, but I have a pretty strong
> opinion that the responsibility of the broker is only to offer an API that
> a web console may use. At my current client we wrote a web console using
> the jmx api. This lets us use a different JVM for the webapp, minimising
> the risk that an error in it will affect the service of the most critical
> piece of infrastructure on our platform. It also lets us monitor and work
> on messages on brokers that are not in a network from the same webapp. I
> don't know what things are like now, but this was difficult back in 5.5.
>
> If this is interesting to people I can probably share a lot of thoughts and
> ideas about the web console.
> On Jan 31, 2014 6:14 PM, "Hiram Chirino" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The core ActiveMQ is all about message passing.  The skill set needed
>> for that is a bit different than the one need to design and build
>> beautiful, modern web applications.  Perhaps folks have just been
>> focused in areas where they feel they can contribute best to.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Carman
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console?  Did folks
>> > just lose interest?  Why was it neglected?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the CVE
>> >> reported against ActiveMQ in the past.  Notice most deal with the old
>> >> console:
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html
>> >>
>> >> It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic status
>> >> refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the current
>> console,
>> >>> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.  Positions are
>> hard to
>> >>> understand, and options unclear.
>> >>>
>> >>> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined, then
>> discuss
>> >>> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing solutions.
>> >>>
>> >>> So, what are the problems?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html
>> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Hiram Chirino
>> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>



If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677212.html
To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined, click here.
NAML
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

James Strachan-2
In reply to this post by James Carman
LOL. Nice try James.

Check out the current plugins for hawtio:
http://hawt.io/plugins/index.html

we've worked pretty well with every version of pretty much every decent
open source software library from camel / cxf / activemq / karaf / tomcat /
jetty / osgi / git / fabric8 / osgi / jmx / quartz - by being a stand alone
separate project. And the hawtio ActiveMQ tooling is way beyond anything in
the old console. Open source projects can actually, you know, collaborate.

There's really no technical reason to force a 22Mb legacy turd into the
ActiveMQ broker project or distro.




On 31 January 2014 18:41, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Right, but you were at the mercy of what was currently exposed.
> Adding new functionality would involve instrumenting it in the MBeans
> (if it's not already there of course).  That's the key reason they
> shouldn't be separated.
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Robin Kåveland Hansen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I will try write up some thoughts on this later, but I have a pretty
> strong
> > opinion that the responsibility of the broker is only to offer an API
> that
> > a web console may use. At my current client we wrote a web console using
> > the jmx api. This lets us use a different JVM for the webapp, minimising
> > the risk that an error in it will affect the service of the most critical
> > piece of infrastructure on our platform. It also lets us monitor and work
> > on messages on brokers that are not in a network from the same webapp. I
> > don't know what things are like now, but this was difficult back in 5.5.
> >
> > If this is interesting to people I can probably share a lot of thoughts
> and
> > ideas about the web console.
> > On Jan 31, 2014 6:14 PM, "Hiram Chirino" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> The core ActiveMQ is all about message passing.  The skill set needed
> >> for that is a bit different than the one need to design and build
> >> beautiful, modern web applications.  Perhaps folks have just been
> >> focused in areas where they feel they can contribute best to.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Carman
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console?  Did folks
> >> > just lose interest?  Why was it neglected?
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino <
> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the CVE
> >> >> reported against ActiveMQ in the past.  Notice most deal with the old
> >> >> console:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html
> >> >>
> >> >> It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic status
> >> >> refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >>> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the current
> >> console,
> >> >>> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.  Positions are
> >> hard to
> >> >>> understand, and options unclear.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined, then
> >> discuss
> >> >>> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing
> solutions.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So, what are the problems?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html
> >> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Hiram Chirino
> >> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >> >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Hiram Chirino
> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>
>



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

Email: [hidden email]
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

artnaseef
This discussion is regarding amq and the webconsole. The state of hawt.io really has no bearing on the discussion as it is not part of amq. 

There are solid reasons amq needs a console. 

Please leave hawt.io out of the discussion. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:00 PM, "James Strachan-2 [via ActiveMQ]" <[hidden email]> wrote:

LOL. Nice try James.

Check out the current plugins for hawtio:
http://hawt.io/plugins/index.html

we've worked pretty well with every version of pretty much every decent
open source software library from camel / cxf / activemq / karaf / tomcat /
jetty / osgi / git / fabric8 / osgi / jmx / quartz - by being a stand alone
separate project. And the hawtio ActiveMQ tooling is way beyond anything in
the old console. Open source projects can actually, you know, collaborate.

There's really no technical reason to force a 22Mb legacy turd into the
ActiveMQ broker project or distro.




On 31 January 2014 18:41, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Right, but you were at the mercy of what was currently exposed.
> Adding new functionality would involve instrumenting it in the MBeans
> (if it's not already there of course).  That's the key reason they
> shouldn't be separated.
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Robin Kåveland Hansen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I will try write up some thoughts on this later, but I have a pretty
> strong
> > opinion that the responsibility of the broker is only to offer an API
> that
> > a web console may use. At my current client we wrote a web console using
> > the jmx api. This lets us use a different JVM for the webapp, minimising
> > the risk that an error in it will affect the service of the most critical
> > piece of infrastructure on our platform. It also lets us monitor and work
> > on messages on brokers that are not in a network from the same webapp. I
> > don't know what things are like now, but this was difficult back in 5.5.
> >
> > If this is interesting to people I can probably share a lot of thoughts
> and
> > ideas about the web console.
> > On Jan 31, 2014 6:14 PM, "Hiram Chirino" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> The core ActiveMQ is all about message passing.  The skill set needed
> >> for that is a bit different than the one need to design and build
> >> beautiful, modern web applications.  Perhaps folks have just been
> >> focused in areas where they feel they can contribute best to.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Carman
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console?  Did folks
> >> > just lose interest?  Why was it neglected?
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino <
> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the CVE
> >> >> reported against ActiveMQ in the past.  Notice most deal with the old
> >> >> console:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html
> >> >>
> >> >> It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic status
> >> >> refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >>> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the current
> >> console,
> >> >>> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.  Positions are
> >> hard to
> >> >>> understand, and options unclear.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined, then
> >> discuss
> >> >>> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing
> solutions.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So, what are the problems?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html
> >> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Hiram Chirino
> >> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >> >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Hiram Chirino
> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> >>
>


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

Email: [hidden email]
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration



If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677218.html
To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined, click here.
NAML
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

artnaseef
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by James Strachan-2
Another thing - "22Mb legacy turd" is not a technical argument (at least, I don't recognize it as one).

I'm disappointed.

If there are concerns with maintenance, what are they?  I believe there are currently only 3 outstanding Jira entries for the console.  Right?  It's old - so what, it's not older than ActiveMQ ;-).  And *definitely* not older than I am :).

I love that so many people are passionate about ActiveMQ.  I wish that passion were being put into making it better and moving it forward rather than making arguments without merit and laying out criticism - very disappointing.

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?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

tabish121@gmail.com
On 01/31/2014 04:09 PM, artnaseef wrote:

> Another thing - "22Mb legacy turd" is not a technical argument (at least, I
> don't recognize it as one).
>
> I'm disappointed.
>
> If there are concerns with maintenance, what are they?  I believe there are
> currently only 3 outstanding Jira entries for the console.  Right?  It's old
> - so what, it's not older than ActiveMQ ;-).
>
> I love that so many people are passionate about ActiveMQ.  I wish that
> passion were being put into making it better and moving it forward rather
> than making arguments without merit and laying out criticism - very
> disappointing.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
Here's some of the issues around the console:

Open

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2785
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2471
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2429
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3555
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4813
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4828
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4994

Closed when we thought the console was deprecated

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4173
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4174
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3370
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4175
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3132
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4499


--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
[hidden email] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

artnaseef
Thanks Timothy!

BTW - looking at the first one on the list AMQ-2785, I don't see a clear
indication of webconsole; is there some way to locate these?  Isn't there
a component for webconsole that could be added to those Jira entries to
make them easy to locate.

>
>
> On 01/31/2014 04:09 PM, artnaseef wrote:
>> Another thing - "22Mb legacy turd" is not a technical argument (at
>> least, I
>> don't recognize it as one).
>>
>> I'm disappointed.
>>
>> If there are concerns with maintenance, what are they?  I believe there
>> are
>> currently only 3 outstanding Jira entries for the console.  Right?  It's
>> old
>> - so what, it's not older than ActiveMQ ;-).
>>
>> I love that so many people are passionate about ActiveMQ.  I wish that
>> passion were being put into making it better and moving it forward
>> rather
>> than making arguments without merit and laying out criticism - very
>> disappointing.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
> Here's some of the issues around the console:
>
> Open
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2785
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2471
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2429
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3555
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4813
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4828
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4994
>
> Closed when we thought the console was deprecated
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4173
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4174
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3370
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4175
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3132
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4499
>
>
> --
> Tim Bish
> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
> [hidden email] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677225.html
> To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined,
> visit
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

James Strachan-2
In reply to this post by artnaseef
On Friday, January 31, 2014, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This discussion is regarding amq and the webconsole.


I am aware of that.



> The state of hawt.io really has no bearing on the discussion as it is not
> part of amq.
>

I think you missed my point - see below



> There are solid reasons amq needs a console.


I'm not convinced at all - jolokia is enough -but let's move on



> Please leave hawt.io out of the discussion.


I only mentioned hawtio as a perfect example to refute JamesC's weak
argument that there is any technical reason for forcing the old
abandoned JSP console to be on the same release schedule and svn directory
as the java broker. If there wasn't a weak argument to refute, I wouldn't
have said anything.

Chill out - its ok to mention technologies that don't have an apache PMC
when debating a technical issue. We're not yet living in Apache Aparteid
where we can only refer to projects of a certain governance colour


>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:00 PM, "James Strachan-2 [via ActiveMQ]" <
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > LOL. Nice try James.
> >
> > Check out the current plugins for hawtio:
> > http://hawt.io/plugins/index.html
> >
> > we've worked pretty well with every version of pretty much every decent
> > open source software library from camel / cxf / activemq / karaf /
> tomcat /
> > jetty / osgi / git / fabric8 / osgi / jmx / quartz - by being a stand
> alone
> > separate project. And the hawtio ActiveMQ tooling is way beyond anything
> in
> > the old console. Open source projects can actually, you know,
> collaborate.
> >
> > There's really no technical reason to force a 22Mb legacy turd into the
> > ActiveMQ broker project or distro.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 31 January 2014 18:41, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Right, but you were at the mercy of what was currently exposed.
> > > Adding new functionality would involve instrumenting it in the MBeans
> > > (if it's not already there of course).  That's the key reason they
> > > shouldn't be separated.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Robin Kåveland Hansen <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I will try write up some thoughts on this later, but I have a pretty
> > > strong
> > > > opinion that the responsibility of the broker is only to offer an API
> > > that
> > > > a web console may use. At my current client we wrote a web console
> using
> > > > the jmx api. This lets us use a different JVM for the webapp,
> minimising
> > > > the risk that an error in it will affect the service of the most
> critical
> > > > piece of infrastructure on our platform. It also lets us monitor and
> work
> > > > on messages on brokers that are not in a network from the same
> webapp. I
> > > > don't know what things are like now, but this was difficult back in
> 5.5.
> > > >
> > > > If this is interesting to people I can probably share a lot of
> thoughts
> > > and
> > > > ideas about the web console.
> > > > On Jan 31, 2014 6:14 PM, "Hiram Chirino" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> The core ActiveMQ is all about message passing.  The skill set
> needed
> > > >> for that is a bit different than the one need to design and build
> > > >> beautiful, modern web applications.  Perhaps folks have just been
> > > >> focused in areas where they feel they can contribute best to.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Carman
> > > >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >> > Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console?  Did folks
> > > >> > just lose interest?  Why was it neglected?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >> As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the
> CVE
> > > >> >> reported against ActiveMQ in the past.  Notice most deal with
> the old
> > > >> >> console:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic status
> > > >> >> refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >>> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the
> current
> > > >> console,
> > > >> >>> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.  Positions
> are
> > > >> hard to
> > > >> >>> understand, and options unclear.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined,
> then
> > > >> discuss
> > > >> >>> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing
> > > solutions.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> So, what are the problems?
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> --
> > > >> >>> View this message in context:
> > > >>
> > >
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html
> > > >> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> --
> > > >> >> Hiram Chirino
> > > >> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > > >> >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > > >> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Hiram Chirino
> > > >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > > >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > > >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James
> > -------
> > Red Hat
> >
> > Email: [hidden email]
> > Web: http://fusesource.com
> > Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
> > Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
> >
> > Open Source Integration
> >
> >
> > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> >
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677218.html
> > To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined,
> click here.
> > NAML
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677221.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



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

Email: [hidden email]
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

tabish121@gmail.com
In reply to this post by artnaseef
On 01/31/2014 06:21 PM, artnaseef wrote:
> Thanks Timothy!
>
> BTW - looking at the first one on the list AMQ-2785, I don't see a clear
> indication of webconsole; is there some way to locate these?
Reading / Searching

> Isn't there
> a component for webconsole that could be added to those Jira entries to
> make them easy to locate.
Yes, there's a 'webconsole' component, feel free to review all open
issue and assign as needed.

>
>>
>> On 01/31/2014 04:09 PM, artnaseef wrote:
>>> Another thing - "22Mb legacy turd" is not a technical argument (at
>>> least, I
>>> don't recognize it as one).
>>>
>>> I'm disappointed.
>>>
>>> If there are concerns with maintenance, what are they?  I believe there
>>> are
>>> currently only 3 outstanding Jira entries for the console.  Right?  It's
>>> old
>>> - so what, it's not older than ActiveMQ ;-).
>>>
>>> I love that so many people are passionate about ActiveMQ.  I wish that
>>> passion were being put into making it better and moving it forward
>>> rather
>>> than making arguments without merit and laying out criticism - very
>>> disappointing.
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Here's some of the issues around the console:
>>
>> Open
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2785
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2471
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2429
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3555
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4813
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4828
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4994
>>
>> Closed when we thought the console was deprecated
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4173
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4174
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3370
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4175
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3132
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4499
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tim Bish
>> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
>> [hidden email] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
>> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>> below:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677225.html
>> To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined,
>> visit
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677243.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
[hidden email] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

artnaseef
In reply to this post by James Strachan-2
>
>
> On Friday, January 31, 2014, artnaseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> This discussion is regarding amq and the webconsole.
>
>
> I am aware of that.
>
>
>
>> The state of hawt.io really has no bearing on the discussion as it is
>> not
>> part of amq.
>>
>
> I think you missed my point - see below
>
>
>
>> There are solid reasons amq needs a console.
>
>
> I'm not convinced at all - jolokia is enough -but let's move on

Why move on - this is the important part of the discussion, is it not?

>
>
>
>> Please leave hawt.io out of the discussion.
>
>
> I only mentioned hawtio as a perfect example to refute JamesC's weak
> argument that there is any technical reason for forcing the old
> abandoned JSP console to be on the same release schedule and svn directory
> as the java broker. If there wasn't a weak argument to refute, I wouldn't
> have said anything.
>
> Chill out - its ok to mention technologies that don't have an apache PMC
> when debating a technical issue. We're not yet living in Apache Aparteid
> where we can only refer to projects of a certain governance colour
>

No worries - we're all good.

Let me rephrase what I was saying - the existence of hawt.io has no
bearing on a discussion of technical merit in removing the existing
webconsole from activemq, so let's please leave that out of the arguments
for or against such a change.  Please feel free to talk about Hawt.io as
much as you like otherwise!  Just be aware that if it's done in a way that
distracts from the discussion, I'll likely say something.  Nothing
personal - just trying to keep the discussion focused and moving forward.

Honestly, I thought JamesC was asking a great question and was
disappointed to not see a great response.

Cheers!


>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:00 PM, "James Strachan-2 [via ActiveMQ]" <
>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >
>> > LOL. Nice try James.
>> >
>> > Check out the current plugins for hawtio:
>> > http://hawt.io/plugins/index.html
>> >
>> > we've worked pretty well with every version of pretty much every
>> decent
>> > open source software library from camel / cxf / activemq / karaf /
>> tomcat /
>> > jetty / osgi / git / fabric8 / osgi / jmx / quartz - by being a stand
>> alone
>> > separate project. And the hawtio ActiveMQ tooling is way beyond
>> anything
>> in
>> > the old console. Open source projects can actually, you know,
>> collaborate.
>> >
>> > There's really no technical reason to force a 22Mb legacy turd into
>> the
>> > ActiveMQ broker project or distro.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 31 January 2014 18:41, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Right, but you were at the mercy of what was currently exposed.
>> > > Adding new functionality would involve instrumenting it in the
>> MBeans
>> > > (if it's not already there of course).  That's the key reason they
>> > > shouldn't be separated.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Robin KÃ¥veland Hansen <[hidden
>> email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > I will try write up some thoughts on this later, but I have a
>> pretty
>> > > strong
>> > > > opinion that the responsibility of the broker is only to offer an
>> API
>> > > that
>> > > > a web console may use. At my current client we wrote a web console
>> using
>> > > > the jmx api. This lets us use a different JVM for the webapp,
>> minimising
>> > > > the risk that an error in it will affect the service of the most
>> critical
>> > > > piece of infrastructure on our platform. It also lets us monitor
>> and
>> work
>> > > > on messages on brokers that are not in a network from the same
>> webapp. I
>> > > > don't know what things are like now, but this was difficult back
>> in
>> 5.5.
>> > > >
>> > > > If this is interesting to people I can probably share a lot of
>> thoughts
>> > > and
>> > > > ideas about the web console.
>> > > > On Jan 31, 2014 6:14 PM, "Hiram Chirino" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> The core ActiveMQ is all about message passing.  The skill set
>> needed
>> > > >> for that is a bit different than the one need to design and build
>> > > >> beautiful, modern web applications.  Perhaps folks have just been
>> > > >> focused in areas where they feel they can contribute best to.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Carman
>> > > >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >> > Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console?  Did
>> folks
>> > > >> > just lose interest?  Why was it neglected?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino <
>> > > [hidden email]>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the
>> CVE
>> > > >> >> reported against ActiveMQ in the past.  Notice most deal with
>> the old
>> > > >> >> console:
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic
>> status
>> > > >> >> refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> >>> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the
>> current
>> > > >> console,
>> > > >> >>> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing.
>> Positions
>> are
>> > > >> hard to
>> > > >> >>> understand, and options unclear.
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined,
>> then
>> > > >> discuss
>> > > >> >>> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing
>> > > solutions.
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> So, what are the problems?
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> --
>> > > >> >>> View this message in context:
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html
>> > > >> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at
>> Nabble.com.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> --
>> > > >> >> Hiram Chirino
>> > > >> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > > >> >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > > >> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> Hiram Chirino
>> > > >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > > >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > > >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > James
>> > -------
>> > Red Hat
>> >
>> > Email: [hidden email]
>> > Web: http://fusesource.com
>> > Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
>> > Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>> >
>> > Open Source Integration
>> >
>> >
>> > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the
>> discussion
>> below:
>> >
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677218.html
>> > To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email
>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>> > To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined,
>> click here.
>> > NAML
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677221.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> --
> James
> -------
> Red Hat
>
> Email: [hidden email]
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>
> Open Source Integration
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677244.html
> To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined,
> visit
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined

artnaseef
In reply to this post by tabish121@gmail.com
Thanks.

I'm trying to edit the issues, but don't seem to have access.  Perhaps I'm
only permissioned to create and comment on issues?  What is needed to be
able to edit them?


>
>
> On 01/31/2014 06:21 PM, artnaseef wrote:
>> Thanks Timothy!
>>
>> BTW - looking at the first one on the list AMQ-2785, I don't see a clear
>> indication of webconsole; is there some way to locate these?
> Reading / Searching
>
>> Isn't there
>> a component for webconsole that could be added to those Jira entries to
>> make them easy to locate.
> Yes, there's a 'webconsole' component, feel free to review all open
> issue and assign as needed.
>
>>
>>>
>>> On 01/31/2014 04:09 PM, artnaseef wrote:
>>>> Another thing - "22Mb legacy turd" is not a technical argument (at
>>>> least, I
>>>> don't recognize it as one).
>>>>
>>>> I'm disappointed.
>>>>
>>>> If there are concerns with maintenance, what are they?  I believe
>>>> there
>>>> are
>>>> currently only 3 outstanding Jira entries for the console.  Right?
>>>> It's
>>>> old
>>>> - so what, it's not older than ActiveMQ ;-).
>>>>
>>>> I love that so many people are passionate about ActiveMQ.  I wish that
>>>> passion were being put into making it better and moving it forward
>>>> rather
>>>> than making arguments without merit and laying out criticism - very
>>>> disappointing.
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> Here's some of the issues around the console:
>>>
>>> Open
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2785
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2471
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2429
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3555
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4813
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4828
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4994
>>>
>>> Closed when we thought the console was deprecated
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4173
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4174
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3370
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4175
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3132
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4499
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Bish
>>> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
>>> [hidden email] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
>>> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the
>>> discussion
>>> below:
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677225.html
>>> To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email
>>> [hidden email]
>>> To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined,
>>> visit
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677243.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> --
> Tim Bish
> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
> [hidden email] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677245.html
> To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined,
> visit
>
123