[DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
76 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

rajdavies
The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few years.

There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going forward, and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely that there may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ. The JMX naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy to view the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such as jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and maintain a static web console any more.

I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10 release - thoughts ?



[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
[2] http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html

Rob Davies
————————
Red Hat, Inc
http://hawt.io - #dontcha
Twitter: rajdavies
Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

ryan segura
Please drop the web console.  I would rather resources be used on more important things -- and that means not even doing a hawtio packaging.  If someone wants hawtio they can just download and use it.  Let third parties develop tools for activemq -- it will better solidify activemq's existence.  



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

jgenender
In reply to this post by rajdavies
Hi Rob,

I think pulling the web console is playing the nuclear option.  The webconsole is used all over the place.  It makes AMQ more approachable for beginners.  It would be a big detriment to remove it.

That said, hawt.io is a nice technology.  But regarding the other thread, I have to agree that in its current state, it somewhat is not in the Apache spirit of things.  Why not leave the old console in for now, and meanwhile, you hawt.io folks allow the console to be skinned so it looks specific to ActiveMQ.  That to me sounds like a win/win, *and* it would open the door to many other projects to leverage it.

Just my .02.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

seijoed
I see no point in removing the old console until this is resolved.
It works, shows queue's and topics, pretty much what is needed.


On Jan 3, 2014, at 9:52 AM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> I think pulling the web console is playing the nuclear option.  The
> webconsole is used all over the place.  It makes AMQ more approachable for
> beginners.  It would be a big detriment to remove it.
>
> That said, hawt.io is a nice technology.  But regarding the other thread, I
> have to agree that in its current state, it somewhat is not in the Apache
> spirit of things.  Why not leave the old console in for now, and meanwhile,
> you hawt.io folks allow the console to be skinned so it looks specific to
> ActiveMQ.  That to me sounds like a win/win, *and* it would open the door to
> many other projects to leverage it.
>
> Just my .02.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Remove-the-old-ActiveMQ-Console-tp4675925p4675982.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Chris Mattmann
In reply to this post by jgenender
Great thread, and thanks for discussing this guys.

I think it would be great to have a planned resolution
to report on in the January 2014 Apache board meeting.

Thanks for leading this discussion. My non binding +1
for this solution.

Cheers,
Chris



-----Original Message-----
From: jgenender <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
Date: Friday, January 3, 2014 8:52 AM
To: <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

>Hi Rob,
>
>I think pulling the web console is playing the nuclear option.  The
>webconsole is used all over the place.  It makes AMQ more approachable for
>beginners.  It would be a big detriment to remove it.
>
>That said, hawt.io is a nice technology.  But regarding the other thread,
>I
>have to agree that in its current state, it somewhat is not in the Apache
>spirit of things.  Why not leave the old console in for now, and
>meanwhile,
>you hawt.io folks allow the console to be skinned so it looks specific to
>ActiveMQ.  That to me sounds like a win/win, *and* it would open the door
>to
>many other projects to leverage it.
>
>Just my .02.
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Remove-the-old-ActiveMQ-Cons
>ole-tp4675925p4675982.html
>Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

rajdavies
In reply to this post by jgenender
Hi Jeff,

Perhaps the best way forward would be to have 2 distros of ActiveMQ  - one without the console, and one with the old console - with clear warnings that it is not maintained etc.


On 3 Jan 2014, at 16:52, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> I think pulling the web console is playing the nuclear option.  The
> webconsole is used all over the place.  It makes AMQ more approachable for
> beginners.  It would be a big detriment to remove it.
>
> That said, hawt.io is a nice technology.  But regarding the other thread, I
> have to agree that in its current state, it somewhat is not in the Apache
> spirit of things.  Why not leave the old console in for now, and meanwhile,
> you hawt.io folks allow the console to be skinned so it looks specific to
> ActiveMQ.  That to me sounds like a win/win, *and* it would open the door to
> many other projects to leverage it.
>
> Just my .02.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Remove-the-old-ActiveMQ-Console-tp4675925p4675982.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Rob Davies
————————
Red Hat, Inc
http://hawt.io - #dontcha
Twitter: rajdavies
Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Lionel Cons
In reply to this post by rajdavies
Rob Davies wrote:
> I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10 release - thoughts ?

Rob,

IMHO, ActiveMQ really needs a decent web console. If this console does not come
bundled with ActiveMQ, it should be very easy to add (e.g. simply adding a jar)
and it must be very well integrated, especially security wise (e.g. using the
same authentication and authorization as the broker itself, like Apollo does).

Cheers,

Lionel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Claus Ibsen
In reply to this post by rajdavies
Hi

I think the old web console should be moved into a sub-project of ActiveMQ.
Other ASF projects like Felix [1], Karaf [2], etc does this with their
web-consoles.

That may also make it easier for people to contribute to the
web-console as a sub-project if there codebase is smaller, and not
contains the entire ActiveMQ source code. That may spark a little more
life into the old web-console so people can help maintain it.

For the standalone ActiveMQ distribution, then installing the old web
console should be an easy step, such as unzipping a .zip file, or
copying a .war / .jar or something to a directory, and allowing to
editing a configuration file to configure the console (port / context
path / or other configurations). Then other 3rd party consoles could
have the *same* installation procedure, so there is even
playing-field.

For the embedded ActiveMQ distribution for SMX/Karaf users, its
already easy to install the console, as its just like any other
installation using a feature. This is the same for other 3rd party
consoles, and thus there is already an even playing field.




[1] - http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-web-console.html
[2] - http://karaf.apache.org/index/subprojects/webconsole.html


On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few years.
>
> There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going forward, and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely that there may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ. The JMX naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy to view the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such as jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and maintain a static web console any more.
>
> I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10 release - thoughts ?
>
>
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
> [2] http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html
>
> Rob Davies
> ————————
> Red Hat, Inc
> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
> Twitter: rajdavies
> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>



--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
Red Hat, Inc.
Email: [hidden email]
Twitter: davsclaus
Blog: http://davsclaus.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
Make your Camel applications look hawt, try: http://hawt.io
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

James Strachan-2
Yeah, I think we should have one distribution with no web console; then
clear instructions of how to install the old deprecated console or hawtio.
This should be as trivial as dropping a WAR in a known location (or a
trivial shell script etc). Then (as Lionel just said) things should just
work, particularly with security. This is how the karaf project works and
it works pretty well.


On 6 January 2014 08:06, Claus Ibsen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I think the old web console should be moved into a sub-project of ActiveMQ.
> Other ASF projects like Felix [1], Karaf [2], etc does this with their
> web-consoles.
>
> That may also make it easier for people to contribute to the
> web-console as a sub-project if there codebase is smaller, and not
> contains the entire ActiveMQ source code. That may spark a little more
> life into the old web-console so people can help maintain it.
>
> For the standalone ActiveMQ distribution, then installing the old web
> console should be an easy step, such as unzipping a .zip file, or
> copying a .war / .jar or something to a directory, and allowing to
> editing a configuration file to configure the console (port / context
> path / or other configurations). Then other 3rd party consoles could
> have the *same* installation procedure, so there is even
> playing-field.
>
> For the embedded ActiveMQ distribution for SMX/Karaf users, its
> already easy to install the console, as its just like any other
> installation using a feature. This is the same for other 3rd party
> consoles, and thus there is already an even playing field.
>
>
>
>
> [1] -
> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-web-console.html
> [2] - http://karaf.apache.org/index/subprojects/webconsole.html
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to
> maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few
> years.
> >
> > There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going forward,
> and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely that
> there may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ.
> The JMX naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy
> to view the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such
> as jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other
> discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and maintain a
> static web console any more.
> >
> > I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10 release -
> thoughts ?
> >
> >
> >
> > [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
> > [2]
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html
> >
> > Rob Davies
> > ————————
> > Red Hat, Inc
> > http://hawt.io - #dontcha
> > Twitter: rajdavies
> > Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> Red Hat, Inc.
> Email: [hidden email]
> Twitter: davsclaus
> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
> Make your Camel applications look hawt, try: http://hawt.io
>



--
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

jgomes
In reply to this post by Claus Ibsen
+1 the ideas that Claus presented below.  I like the idea of a simple
drop-in install and a level playing field for replacement consoles.  By
having a default "headless" install, the security of a production
deployment goes way up.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Claus Ibsen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I think the old web console should be moved into a sub-project of ActiveMQ.
> Other ASF projects like Felix [1], Karaf [2], etc does this with their
> web-consoles.
>
> That may also make it easier for people to contribute to the
> web-console as a sub-project if there codebase is smaller, and not
> contains the entire ActiveMQ source code. That may spark a little more
> life into the old web-console so people can help maintain it.
>
> For the standalone ActiveMQ distribution, then installing the old web
> console should be an easy step, such as unzipping a .zip file, or
> copying a .war / .jar or something to a directory, and allowing to
> editing a configuration file to configure the console (port / context
> path / or other configurations). Then other 3rd party consoles could
> have the *same* installation procedure, so there is even
> playing-field.
>
> For the embedded ActiveMQ distribution for SMX/Karaf users, its
> already easy to install the console, as its just like any other
> installation using a feature. This is the same for other 3rd party
> consoles, and thus there is already an even playing field.
>
>
>
>
> [1] -
> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-web-console.html
> [2] - http://karaf.apache.org/index/subprojects/webconsole.html
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to
> maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few
> years.
> >
> > There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going forward,
> and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely that
> there may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ.
> The JMX naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy
> to view the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such
> as jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other
> discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and maintain a
> static web console any more.
> >
> > I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10 release -
> thoughts ?
> >
> >
> >
> > [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
> > [2]
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html
> >
> > Rob Davies
> > ————————
> > Red Hat, Inc
> > http://hawt.io - #dontcha
> > Twitter: rajdavies
> > Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> Red Hat, Inc.
> Email: [hidden email]
> Twitter: davsclaus
> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
> Make your Camel applications look hawt, try: http://hawt.io
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

James Carman
Of course, by shipping with no console, stopping development of the
current one, and with hawt.io already having a working console, I
wonder where we are going to be pointing folks?

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 the ideas that Claus presented below.  I like the idea of a simple
> drop-in install and a level playing field for replacement consoles.  By
> having a default "headless" install, the security of a production
> deployment goes way up.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Claus Ibsen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I think the old web console should be moved into a sub-project of ActiveMQ.
>> Other ASF projects like Felix [1], Karaf [2], etc does this with their
>> web-consoles.
>>
>> That may also make it easier for people to contribute to the
>> web-console as a sub-project if there codebase is smaller, and not
>> contains the entire ActiveMQ source code. That may spark a little more
>> life into the old web-console so people can help maintain it.
>>
>> For the standalone ActiveMQ distribution, then installing the old web
>> console should be an easy step, such as unzipping a .zip file, or
>> copying a .war / .jar or something to a directory, and allowing to
>> editing a configuration file to configure the console (port / context
>> path / or other configurations). Then other 3rd party consoles could
>> have the *same* installation procedure, so there is even
>> playing-field.
>>
>> For the embedded ActiveMQ distribution for SMX/Karaf users, its
>> already easy to install the console, as its just like any other
>> installation using a feature. This is the same for other 3rd party
>> consoles, and thus there is already an even playing field.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] -
>> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-web-console.html
>> [2] - http://karaf.apache.org/index/subprojects/webconsole.html
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to
>> maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few
>> years.
>> >
>> > There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going forward,
>> and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely that
>> there may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ.
>> The JMX naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy
>> to view the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such
>> as jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other
>> discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and maintain a
>> static web console any more.
>> >
>> > I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10 release -
>> thoughts ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [1]
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
>> > [2]
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html
>> >
>> > Rob Davies
>> > ————————
>> > Red Hat, Inc
>> > http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>> > Twitter: rajdavies
>> > Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claus Ibsen
>> -----------------
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>> Email: [hidden email]
>> Twitter: davsclaus
>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>> Make your Camel applications look hawt, try: http://hawt.io
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

dkulp
In reply to this post by rajdavies

On Jan 5, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
>
> Perhaps the best way forward would be to have 2 distros of ActiveMQ  - one without the console, and one with the old console - with clear warnings that it is not maintained etc.

Personally, I really like this option.    A “minimal” distribution and a “full” distro would be great.   The full distro with web console and everything is certainly useful for beginners to get started with ActiveMQ, but really anyone more advanced (or in production and such) would likely just need the minimal as they could then use whatever management capabilities they already have.    I’d certainly be in full support for this idea.

Dan



> On 3 Jan 2014, at 16:52, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> I think pulling the web console is playing the nuclear option.  The
>> webconsole is used all over the place.  It makes AMQ more approachable for
>> beginners.  It would be a big detriment to remove it.
>>
>> That said, hawt.io is a nice technology.  But regarding the other thread, I
>> have to agree that in its current state, it somewhat is not in the Apache
>> spirit of things.  Why not leave the old console in for now, and meanwhile,
>> you hawt.io folks allow the console to be skinned so it looks specific to
>> ActiveMQ.  That to me sounds like a win/win, *and* it would open the door to
>> many other projects to leverage it.
>>
>> Just my .02.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Remove-the-old-ActiveMQ-Console-tp4675925p4675982.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> Rob Davies
> ————————
> Red Hat, Inc
> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
> Twitter: rajdavies
> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>

--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

tabish121@gmail.com
In reply to this post by Claus Ibsen
On 01/06/2014 03:06 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:

> Hi
>
> I think the old web console should be moved into a sub-project of ActiveMQ.
> Other ASF projects like Felix [1], Karaf [2], etc does this with their
> web-consoles.
>
> That may also make it easier for people to contribute to the
> web-console as a sub-project if there codebase is smaller, and not
> contains the entire ActiveMQ source code. That may spark a little more
> life into the old web-console so people can help maintain it.
>
> For the standalone ActiveMQ distribution, then installing the old web
> console should be an easy step, such as unzipping a .zip file, or
> copying a .war / .jar or something to a directory, and allowing to
> editing a configuration file to configure the console (port / context
> path / or other configurations). Then other 3rd party consoles could
> have the *same* installation procedure, so there is even
> playing-field.
>
> For the embedded ActiveMQ distribution for SMX/Karaf users, its
> already easy to install the console, as its just like any other
> installation using a feature. This is the same for other 3rd party
> consoles, and thus there is already an even playing field.
>
>
>
>
> [1] - http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-web-console.html
> [2] - http://karaf.apache.org/index/subprojects/webconsole.html
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few years.
>>
>> There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going forward, and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely that there may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ. The JMX naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy to view the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such as jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and maintain a static web console any more.
>>
>> I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10 release - thoughts ?
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
>> [2] http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html
>>
>> Rob Davies
>> ————————
>> Red Hat, Inc
>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>> Twitter: rajdavies
>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>
>
>
+1

The old console has been a continuous source of bugs and there's not
been much community involvement in maintaining it so it'd be much better
to just remove from the mainline and provide a way for those who really
want to contribute to do so without shipping out something that's not as
polished in the main distribution.

--
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

ceposta
+1 @ Claus, Jim, and Tim's thread of the discussion.

Moving the console to a subproject separates the code out enough and
makes it "less intimidating" to those in the community that would like
to approach it and contribute. Then have one distro that's "headless"
with the option of using whatever console one wanted, including quick
drop in of the old console. Could even distribute a script that goes
out, d/l the old console and installs it on demand as one sees fit (as
james mentioned).



On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 01/06/2014 03:06 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I think the old web console should be moved into a sub-project of
>> ActiveMQ.
>> Other ASF projects like Felix [1], Karaf [2], etc does this with their
>> web-consoles.
>>
>> That may also make it easier for people to contribute to the
>> web-console as a sub-project if there codebase is smaller, and not
>> contains the entire ActiveMQ source code. That may spark a little more
>> life into the old web-console so people can help maintain it.
>>
>> For the standalone ActiveMQ distribution, then installing the old web
>> console should be an easy step, such as unzipping a .zip file, or
>> copying a .war / .jar or something to a directory, and allowing to
>> editing a configuration file to configure the console (port / context
>> path / or other configurations). Then other 3rd party consoles could
>> have the *same* installation procedure, so there is even
>> playing-field.
>>
>> For the embedded ActiveMQ distribution for SMX/Karaf users, its
>> already easy to install the console, as its just like any other
>> installation using a feature. This is the same for other 3rd party
>> consoles, and thus there is already an even playing field.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] -
>> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-web-console.html
>> [2] - http://karaf.apache.org/index/subprojects/webconsole.html
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to
>>> maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few
>>> years.
>>>
>>> There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going forward,
>>> and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely that there
>>> may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ. The JMX
>>> naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy to view
>>> the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such as
>>> jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other
>>> discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and maintain a
>>> static web console any more.
>>>
>>> I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10 release -
>>> thoughts ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
>>> [2]
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html
>>>
>>> Rob Davies
>>> ————————
>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>
>>
>>
> +1
>
> The old console has been a continuous source of bugs and there's not been
> much community involvement in maintaining it so it'd be much better to just
> remove from the mainline and provide a way for those who really want to
> contribute to do so without shipping out something that's not as polished in
> the main distribution.
>
> --
> Tim Bish
> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
> [hidden email] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>



--
Christian Posta
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
twitter: @christianposta
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

rajdavies
I agree, this seems like the best approach so far.

On 7 Jan 2014, at 23:27, Christian Posta <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 @ Claus, Jim, and Tim's thread of the discussion.
>
> Moving the console to a subproject separates the code out enough and
> makes it "less intimidating" to those in the community that would like
> to approach it and contribute. Then have one distro that's "headless"
> with the option of using whatever console one wanted, including quick
> drop in of the old console. Could even distribute a script that goes
> out, d/l the old console and installs it on demand as one sees fit (as
> james mentioned).
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 01/06/2014 03:06 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I think the old web console should be moved into a sub-project of
>>> ActiveMQ.
>>> Other ASF projects like Felix [1], Karaf [2], etc does this with their
>>> web-consoles.
>>>
>>> That may also make it easier for people to contribute to the
>>> web-console as a sub-project if there codebase is smaller, and not
>>> contains the entire ActiveMQ source code. That may spark a little more
>>> life into the old web-console so people can help maintain it.
>>>
>>> For the standalone ActiveMQ distribution, then installing the old web
>>> console should be an easy step, such as unzipping a .zip file, or
>>> copying a .war / .jar or something to a directory, and allowing to
>>> editing a configuration file to configure the console (port / context
>>> path / or other configurations). Then other 3rd party consoles could
>>> have the *same* installation procedure, so there is even
>>> playing-field.
>>>
>>> For the embedded ActiveMQ distribution for SMX/Karaf users, its
>>> already easy to install the console, as its just like any other
>>> installation using a feature. This is the same for other 3rd party
>>> consoles, and thus there is already an even playing field.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] -
>>> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-web-console.html
>>> [2] - http://karaf.apache.org/index/subprojects/webconsole.html
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to
>>>> maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going forward,
>>>> and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely that there
>>>> may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ. The JMX
>>>> naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy to view
>>>> the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such as
>>>> jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other
>>>> discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and maintain a
>>>> static web console any more.
>>>>
>>>> I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10 release -
>>>> thoughts ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
>>>> [2]
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html
>>>>
>>>> Rob Davies
>>>> ————————
>>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> +1
>>
>> The old console has been a continuous source of bugs and there's not been
>> much community involvement in maintaining it so it'd be much better to just
>> remove from the mainline and provide a way for those who really want to
>> contribute to do so without shipping out something that's not as polished in
>> the main distribution.
>>
>> --
>> Tim Bish
>> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
>> [hidden email] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
>> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Posta
> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
> twitter: @christianposta

Rob Davies
————————
Red Hat, Inc
http://hawt.io - #dontcha
Twitter: rajdavies
Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

dejanb
+1 from me as well. We have Jetty in and it should be easy to hot-deploy
any war folks want to use for the web part of the broker. So we can exclude
current web demos as well (which already don't start by default), then
rework them and allow people to install them on demand. This will allow us
to have much leaner broker installation.

Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
----------------------
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
[hidden email]
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree, this seems like the best approach so far.
>
> On 7 Jan 2014, at 23:27, Christian Posta <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 @ Claus, Jim, and Tim's thread of the discussion.
> >
> > Moving the console to a subproject separates the code out enough and
> > makes it "less intimidating" to those in the community that would like
> > to approach it and contribute. Then have one distro that's "headless"
> > with the option of using whatever console one wanted, including quick
> > drop in of the old console. Could even distribute a script that goes
> > out, d/l the old console and installs it on demand as one sees fit (as
> > james mentioned).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> On 01/06/2014 03:06 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> I think the old web console should be moved into a sub-project of
> >>> ActiveMQ.
> >>> Other ASF projects like Felix [1], Karaf [2], etc does this with their
> >>> web-consoles.
> >>>
> >>> That may also make it easier for people to contribute to the
> >>> web-console as a sub-project if there codebase is smaller, and not
> >>> contains the entire ActiveMQ source code. That may spark a little more
> >>> life into the old web-console so people can help maintain it.
> >>>
> >>> For the standalone ActiveMQ distribution, then installing the old web
> >>> console should be an easy step, such as unzipping a .zip file, or
> >>> copying a .war / .jar or something to a directory, and allowing to
> >>> editing a configuration file to configure the console (port / context
> >>> path / or other configurations). Then other 3rd party consoles could
> >>> have the *same* installation procedure, so there is even
> >>> playing-field.
> >>>
> >>> For the embedded ActiveMQ distribution for SMX/Karaf users, its
> >>> already easy to install the console, as its just like any other
> >>> installation using a feature. This is the same for other 3rd party
> >>> consoles, and thus there is already an even playing field.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] -
> >>>
> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-web-console.html
> >>> [2] - http://karaf.apache.org/index/subprojects/webconsole.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to
> >>>> maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few
> >>>> years.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going
> forward,
> >>>> and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely
> that there
> >>>> may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ.
> The JMX
> >>>> naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy to
> view
> >>>> the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such as
> >>>> jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other
> >>>> discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and
> maintain a
> >>>> static web console any more.
> >>>>
> >>>> I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10
> release -
> >>>> thoughts ?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
> >>>> [2]
> >>>>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Rob Davies
> >>>> ————————
> >>>> Red Hat, Inc
> >>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
> >>>> Twitter: rajdavies
> >>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
> >>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> The old console has been a continuous source of bugs and there's not
> been
> >> much community involvement in maintaining it so it'd be much better to
> just
> >> remove from the mainline and provide a way for those who really want to
> >> contribute to do so without shipping out something that's not as
> polished in
> >> the main distribution.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tim Bish
> >> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
> >> [hidden email] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
> >> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
> >> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christian Posta
> > http://www.christianposta.com/blog
> > twitter: @christianposta
>
> Rob Davies
> ————————
> Red Hat, Inc
> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
> Twitter: rajdavies
> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

chirino
+1

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Dejan Bosanac <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 from me as well. We have Jetty in and it should be easy to hot-deploy
> any war folks want to use for the web part of the broker. So we can exclude
> current web demos as well (which already don't start by default), then
> rework them and allow people to install them on demand. This will allow us
> to have much leaner broker installation.
>
> Regards
> --
> Dejan Bosanac
> ----------------------
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> [hidden email]
> Twitter: @dejanb
> Blog: http://sensatic.net
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I agree, this seems like the best approach so far.
>>
>> On 7 Jan 2014, at 23:27, Christian Posta <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 @ Claus, Jim, and Tim's thread of the discussion.
>> >
>> > Moving the console to a subproject separates the code out enough and
>> > makes it "less intimidating" to those in the community that would like
>> > to approach it and contribute. Then have one distro that's "headless"
>> > with the option of using whatever console one wanted, including quick
>> > drop in of the old console. Could even distribute a script that goes
>> > out, d/l the old console and installs it on demand as one sees fit (as
>> > james mentioned).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> On 01/06/2014 03:06 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi
>> >>>
>> >>> I think the old web console should be moved into a sub-project of
>> >>> ActiveMQ.
>> >>> Other ASF projects like Felix [1], Karaf [2], etc does this with their
>> >>> web-consoles.
>> >>>
>> >>> That may also make it easier for people to contribute to the
>> >>> web-console as a sub-project if there codebase is smaller, and not
>> >>> contains the entire ActiveMQ source code. That may spark a little more
>> >>> life into the old web-console so people can help maintain it.
>> >>>
>> >>> For the standalone ActiveMQ distribution, then installing the old web
>> >>> console should be an easy step, such as unzipping a .zip file, or
>> >>> copying a .war / .jar or something to a directory, and allowing to
>> >>> editing a configuration file to configure the console (port / context
>> >>> path / or other configurations). Then other 3rd party consoles could
>> >>> have the *same* installation procedure, so there is even
>> >>> playing-field.
>> >>>
>> >>> For the embedded ActiveMQ distribution for SMX/Karaf users, its
>> >>> already easy to install the console, as its just like any other
>> >>> installation using a feature. This is the same for other 3rd party
>> >>> consoles, and thus there is already an even playing field.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> [1] -
>> >>>
>> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-web-console.html
>> >>> [2] - http://karaf.apache.org/index/subprojects/webconsole.html
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to
>> >>>> maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few
>> >>>> years.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going
>> forward,
>> >>>> and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely
>> that there
>> >>>> may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ.
>> The JMX
>> >>>> naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy to
>> view
>> >>>> the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such as
>> >>>> jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other
>> >>>> discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and
>> maintain a
>> >>>> static web console any more.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10
>> release -
>> >>>> thoughts ?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [1]
>> >>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
>> >>>> [2]
>> >>>>
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Rob Davies
>> >>>> ————————
>> >>>> Red Hat, Inc
>> >>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>> >>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>> >>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>> >>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> The old console has been a continuous source of bugs and there's not
>> been
>> >> much community involvement in maintaining it so it'd be much better to
>> just
>> >> remove from the mainline and provide a way for those who really want to
>> >> contribute to do so without shipping out something that's not as
>> polished in
>> >> the main distribution.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Tim Bish
>> >> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
>> >> [hidden email] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
>> >> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
>> >> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Christian Posta
>> > http://www.christianposta.com/blog
>> > twitter: @christianposta
>>
>> Rob Davies
>> ————————
>> Red Hat, Inc
>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>> Twitter: rajdavies
>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>
>>



--
Hiram Chirino

Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.

[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com

skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino

blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Matthew Pavlovich
+1
 
On Jan 8, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Dejan Bosanac <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> +1 from me as well. We have Jetty in and it should be easy to hot-deploy
>> any war folks want to use for the web part of the broker. So we can exclude
>> current web demos as well (which already don't start by default), then
>> rework them and allow people to install them on demand. This will allow us
>> to have much leaner broker installation.
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> Dejan Bosanac
>> ----------------------
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
>> [hidden email]
>> Twitter: @dejanb
>> Blog: http://sensatic.net
>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, this seems like the best approach so far.
>>>
>>> On 7 Jan 2014, at 23:27, Christian Posta <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 @ Claus, Jim, and Tim's thread of the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Moving the console to a subproject separates the code out enough and
>>>> makes it "less intimidating" to those in the community that would like
>>>> to approach it and contribute. Then have one distro that's "headless"
>>>> with the option of using whatever console one wanted, including quick
>>>> drop in of the old console. Could even distribute a script that goes
>>>> out, d/l the old console and installs it on demand as one sees fit (as
>>>> james mentioned).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/06/2014 03:06 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the old web console should be moved into a sub-project of
>>>>>> ActiveMQ.
>>>>>> Other ASF projects like Felix [1], Karaf [2], etc does this with their
>>>>>> web-consoles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That may also make it easier for people to contribute to the
>>>>>> web-console as a sub-project if there codebase is smaller, and not
>>>>>> contains the entire ActiveMQ source code. That may spark a little more
>>>>>> life into the old web-console so people can help maintain it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the standalone ActiveMQ distribution, then installing the old web
>>>>>> console should be an easy step, such as unzipping a .zip file, or
>>>>>> copying a .war / .jar or something to a directory, and allowing to
>>>>>> editing a configuration file to configure the console (port / context
>>>>>> path / or other configurations). Then other 3rd party consoles could
>>>>>> have the *same* installation procedure, so there is even
>>>>>> playing-field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the embedded ActiveMQ distribution for SMX/Karaf users, its
>>>>>> already easy to install the console, as its just like any other
>>>>>> installation using a feature. This is the same for other 3rd party
>>>>>> consoles, and thus there is already an even playing field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] -
>>>>>>
>>> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-web-console.html
>>>>>> [2] - http://karaf.apache.org/index/subprojects/webconsole.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to
>>>>>>> maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few
>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going
>>> forward,
>>>>>>> and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely
>>> that there
>>>>>>> may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ.
>>> The JMX
>>>>>>> naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy to
>>> view
>>>>>>> the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such as
>>>>>>> jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other
>>>>>>> discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and
>>> maintain a
>>>>>>> static web console any more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10
>>> release -
>>>>>>> thoughts ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rob Davies
>>>>>>> ————————
>>>>>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>>>>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>>>>>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>>>>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>>>>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> The old console has been a continuous source of bugs and there's not
>>> been
>>>>> much community involvement in maintaining it so it'd be much better to
>>> just
>>>>> remove from the mainline and provide a way for those who really want to
>>>>> contribute to do so without shipping out something that's not as
>>> polished in
>>>>> the main distribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tim Bish
>>>>> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
>>>>> [hidden email] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
>>>>> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
>>>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christian Posta
>>>> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
>>>> twitter: @christianposta
>>>
>>> Rob Davies
>>> ————————
>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
>
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>
> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
> blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

rajdavies
This discussion seems to have slowed/stopped. Although I don’t think there’s a consensus - it seems moving the old console to a sub-project and making the install optional from the distribution will cover most concerns raised. Unless there’s objections - I’d like to suggest we make this happen asap and get a new ActiveMQ release out - unless we need to vote ?

thanks,

Rob

On 9 Jan 2014, at 05:09, Matt Pavlovich <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Jan 8, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Dejan Bosanac <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> +1 from me as well. We have Jetty in and it should be easy to hot-deploy
>>> any war folks want to use for the web part of the broker. So we can exclude
>>> current web demos as well (which already don't start by default), then
>>> rework them and allow people to install them on demand. This will allow us
>>> to have much leaner broker installation.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> --
>>> Dejan Bosanac
>>> ----------------------
>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Twitter: @dejanb
>>> Blog: http://sensatic.net
>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree, this seems like the best approach so far.
>>>>
>>>> On 7 Jan 2014, at 23:27, Christian Posta <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 @ Claus, Jim, and Tim's thread of the discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moving the console to a subproject separates the code out enough and
>>>>> makes it "less intimidating" to those in the community that would like
>>>>> to approach it and contribute. Then have one distro that's "headless"
>>>>> with the option of using whatever console one wanted, including quick
>>>>> drop in of the old console. Could even distribute a script that goes
>>>>> out, d/l the old console and installs it on demand as one sees fit (as
>>>>> james mentioned).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/06/2014 03:06 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the old web console should be moved into a sub-project of
>>>>>>> ActiveMQ.
>>>>>>> Other ASF projects like Felix [1], Karaf [2], etc does this with their
>>>>>>> web-consoles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That may also make it easier for people to contribute to the
>>>>>>> web-console as a sub-project if there codebase is smaller, and not
>>>>>>> contains the entire ActiveMQ source code. That may spark a little more
>>>>>>> life into the old web-console so people can help maintain it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the standalone ActiveMQ distribution, then installing the old web
>>>>>>> console should be an easy step, such as unzipping a .zip file, or
>>>>>>> copying a .war / .jar or something to a directory, and allowing to
>>>>>>> editing a configuration file to configure the console (port / context
>>>>>>> path / or other configurations). Then other 3rd party consoles could
>>>>>>> have the *same* installation procedure, so there is even
>>>>>>> playing-field.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the embedded ActiveMQ distribution for SMX/Karaf users, its
>>>>>>> already easy to install the console, as its just like any other
>>>>>>> installation using a feature. This is the same for other 3rd party
>>>>>>> consoles, and thus there is already an even playing field.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] -
>>>>>>>
>>>> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-web-console.html
>>>>>>> [2] - http://karaf.apache.org/index/subprojects/webconsole.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to
>>>>>>>> maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few
>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going
>>>> forward,
>>>>>>>> and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely
>>>> that there
>>>>>>>> may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ.
>>>> The JMX
>>>>>>>> naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy to
>>>> view
>>>>>>>> the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such as
>>>>>>>> jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other
>>>>>>>> discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and
>>>> maintain a
>>>>>>>> static web console any more.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10
>>>> release -
>>>>>>>> thoughts ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rob Davies
>>>>>>>> ————————
>>>>>>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>>>>>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>>>>>>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>>>>>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The old console has been a continuous source of bugs and there's not
>>>> been
>>>>>> much community involvement in maintaining it so it'd be much better to
>>>> just
>>>>>> remove from the mainline and provide a way for those who really want to
>>>>>> contribute to do so without shipping out something that's not as
>>>> polished in
>>>>>> the main distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Tim Bish
>>>>>> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
>>>>>> [hidden email] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
>>>>>> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
>>>>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christian Posta
>>>>> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
>>>>> twitter: @christianposta
>>>>
>>>> Rob Davies
>>>> ————————
>>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>>
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>
>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>> blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

dkulp

On Jan 13, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This discussion seems to have slowed/stopped. Although I don’t think there’s a consensus - it seems moving the old console to a sub-project and making the install optional from the distribution will cover most concerns raised. Unless there’s objections - I’d like to suggest we make this happen asap and get a new ActiveMQ release
> out - unless we need to vote ?


As someone who’s had to struggle to install things behind corporate firewalls and networks without internet connectivity and such on several occasions, I’d certainly prefer an “activemq-all” distribution or something that would be fully complete.   Those “no internet” situations always annoy me when I have some optional thing that I really need at that moment.   (yea, I admit, usually comes down to poor planning on my part)

Dan



> thanks,
>
> Rob
>
> On 9 Jan 2014, at 05:09, Matt Pavlovich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Dejan Bosanac <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> +1 from me as well. We have Jetty in and it should be easy to hot-deploy
>>>> any war folks want to use for the web part of the broker. So we can exclude
>>>> current web demos as well (which already don't start by default), then
>>>> rework them and allow people to install them on demand. This will allow us
>>>> to have much leaner broker installation.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> --
>>>> Dejan Bosanac
>>>> ----------------------
>>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>>> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> Twitter: @dejanb
>>>> Blog: http://sensatic.net
>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree, this seems like the best approach so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7 Jan 2014, at 23:27, Christian Posta <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 @ Claus, Jim, and Tim's thread of the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moving the console to a subproject separates the code out enough and
>>>>>> makes it "less intimidating" to those in the community that would like
>>>>>> to approach it and contribute. Then have one distro that's "headless"
>>>>>> with the option of using whatever console one wanted, including quick
>>>>>> drop in of the old console. Could even distribute a script that goes
>>>>>> out, d/l the old console and installs it on demand as one sees fit (as
>>>>>> james mentioned).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Timothy Bish <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/06/2014 03:06 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the old web console should be moved into a sub-project of
>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ.
>>>>>>>> Other ASF projects like Felix [1], Karaf [2], etc does this with their
>>>>>>>> web-consoles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That may also make it easier for people to contribute to the
>>>>>>>> web-console as a sub-project if there codebase is smaller, and not
>>>>>>>> contains the entire ActiveMQ source code. That may spark a little more
>>>>>>>> life into the old web-console so people can help maintain it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the standalone ActiveMQ distribution, then installing the old web
>>>>>>>> console should be an easy step, such as unzipping a .zip file, or
>>>>>>>> copying a .war / .jar or something to a directory, and allowing to
>>>>>>>> editing a configuration file to configure the console (port / context
>>>>>>>> path / or other configurations). Then other 3rd party consoles could
>>>>>>>> have the *same* installation procedure, so there is even
>>>>>>>> playing-field.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the embedded ActiveMQ distribution for SMX/Karaf users, its
>>>>>>>> already easy to install the console, as its just like any other
>>>>>>>> installation using a feature. This is the same for other 3rd party
>>>>>>>> consoles, and thus there is already an even playing field.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-web-console.html
>>>>>>>> [2] - http://karaf.apache.org/index/subprojects/webconsole.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to
>>>>>>>>> maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few
>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going
>>>>> forward,
>>>>>>>>> and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely
>>>>> that there
>>>>>>>>> may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ.
>>>>> The JMX
>>>>>>>>> naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy to
>>>>> view
>>>>>>>>> the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such as
>>>>>>>>> jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other
>>>>>>>>> discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and
>>>>> maintain a
>>>>>>>>> static web console any more.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10
>>>>> release -
>>>>>>>>> thoughts ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rob Davies
>>>>>>>>> ————————
>>>>>>>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>>>>>>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>>>>>>>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The old console has been a continuous source of bugs and there's not
>>>>> been
>>>>>>> much community involvement in maintaining it so it'd be much better to
>>>>> just
>>>>>>> remove from the mainline and provide a way for those who really want to
>>>>>>> contribute to do so without shipping out something that's not as
>>>>> polished in
>>>>>>> the main distribution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Tim Bish
>>>>>>> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
>>>>>>> [hidden email] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
>>>>>>> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
>>>>>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Christian Posta
>>>>>> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
>>>>>> twitter: @christianposta
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob Davies
>>>>> ————————
>>>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>>>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>
>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>
>>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>
>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>
>>> blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo
>
>

--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

1234
Loading...