[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
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

rajdavies
>
> 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)
>

Yeah - but its the sort of thing you’d only do once ;).

>
>
>> 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

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
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Claus Ibsen
In reply to this post by Daniel Kulp
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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)
>

Ah no problem.

Download the activemq-webconsole zip file and install it offline, just
by unzipping it.


> 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
>



--
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
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by Daniel Kulp
I am +1 on moving the console into a subproject. That way it could have
a life of its own, independent of the server side.

I am -1 on making the console optional in the distro. I am more in favor
of having a minimal (no console and maybe other features) and a full
distro including the console like other projects do and like Claus I
think suggested earlier in this thread. Most of the users I know
actively use the console and they expect it in a full distro. I don't
see any compelling reason to change that.

My $0.01,
Hadrian


On 01/13/2014 05:08 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:

>
> 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
>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

gtully
In reply to this post by rajdavies
I think the web-console should die, letting it rot in a subproject
will not make it more secure,usable nor maintainable.

Then we either -
 1) skin hawtio with an Apache ActiveMQ brand and continue to ship it
 2) document the extension points for third party consoles.

I think dropping needs to be contingent on either 1 or 2.

Imho, hawtio does it right with the jolokia jmx/http bridge and has
some nice extension points so I am in favour of 1

On 2 January 2014 09:59, 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/
>



--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

rajdavies
This discussion has been open a while - not exactly consensus but then there’s not really much difference either. There does seem to be general consensus amongst the poor folks who actually maintain the old console (me included) it should die quickly, but I think we should keep it around optionally for those users who can’t use anything else?.
We have to get this resolved quickly - so I’ll start a vote and hope to gain some consensus, at least within the PMC.

thanks,

Rob
On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:21, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think the web-console should die, letting it rot in a subproject
> will not make it more secure,usable nor maintainable.
>
> Then we either -
> 1) skin hawtio with an Apache ActiveMQ brand and continue to ship it
> 2) document the extension points for third party consoles.
>
> I think dropping needs to be contingent on either 1 or 2.
>
> Imho, hawtio does it right with the jolokia jmx/http bridge and has
> some nice extension points so I am in favour of 1
>
> On 2 January 2014 09:59, 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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://redhat.com
> http://blog.garytully.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
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Daniel Kulp

On Jan 17, 2014, at 4:32 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This discussion has been open a while - not exactly consensus but then there’s not really much difference either. There does seem to be general consensus amongst the poor folks who actually maintain the old console (me included) it should die quickly, but I think we should keep it around optionally for those users who can’t use anything else?.
> We have to get this resolved quickly - so I’ll start a vote and hope to gain some consensus, at least within the PMC.

Not sure what a vote would accomplish that this discussion hasn’t already shown.    It looks to me like there is consensus to move the console to a sub project thing (I suppose a vote on that might make sense to verify), but it also looks like there is at least one PMC member that feels there needs to be a distribution similar to what you have today that includes it.  I’m not sure a vote would change that (but I could be wrong).

Remember, Apache communities are NOT democracies, they are consensus driven communities.   Votes should be used just to test/verify consensus. (other than release votes, they are different)  If a consensus cannot be achieved, then status quo remains.  In other words, if you cannot find the common ground that everyone CAN agree on, then nothing will change and what you have today remains.   Just keep that in mind.  Pushing hard for things that are highly unlikely to obtain consensus will just result in heated and unpleasant arguments which can harm the community.


Dan



>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
> On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:21, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I think the web-console should die, letting it rot in a subproject
>> will not make it more secure,usable nor maintainable.
>>
>> Then we either -
>> 1) skin hawtio with an Apache ActiveMQ brand and continue to ship it
>> 2) document the extension points for third party consoles.
>>
>> I think dropping needs to be contingent on either 1 or 2.
>>
>> Imho, hawtio does it right with the jolokia jmx/http bridge and has
>> some nice extension points so I am in favour of 1
>>
>> On 2 January 2014 09:59, 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/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://redhat.com
>> http://blog.garytully.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
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

rajdavies
>
> Not sure what a vote would accomplish that this discussion hasn’t already shown.    It looks to me like there is consensus to move the console to a sub project thing (I suppose a vote on that might make sense to verify), but it also looks like there is at least one PMC member that feels there needs to be a distribution similar to what you have today that includes it.  I’m not sure a vote would change that (but I could be wrong).
>
> Remember, Apache communities are NOT democracies, they are consensus driven communities.   Votes should be used just to test/verify consensus. (other than release votes, they are different)  If a consensus cannot be achieved, then status quo remains.  In other words, if you cannot find the common ground that everyone CAN agree on, then nothing will change and what you have today remains.   Just keep that in mind.  Pushing hard for things that are highly unlikely to obtain consensus will just result in heated and unpleasant arguments which can harm the community.

More of a poll than a vote - and you haven’t seen what is says yet!

>
> Dan
>
>
>
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Rob
>> On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:21, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the web-console should die, letting it rot in a subproject
>>> will not make it more secure,usable nor maintainable.
>>>
>>> Then we either -
>>> 1) skin hawtio with an Apache ActiveMQ brand and continue to ship it
>>> 2) document the extension points for third party consoles.
>>>
>>> I think dropping needs to be contingent on either 1 or 2.
>>>
>>> Imho, hawtio does it right with the jolokia jmx/http bridge and has
>>> some nice extension points so I am in favour of 1
>>>
>>> On 2 January 2014 09:59, 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/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://redhat.com
>>> http://blog.garytully.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

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
|

[POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

rajdavies
In reply to this post by Daniel Kulp
I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it to binding votes only ?
 

1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have a second distribution with the original console
3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.

Here’s my vote:

[1]. +1
[2]  0
[3] 0
[4] -1

thanks,

Rob

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

dejanb
[1] +1
[2] -1
[3] +1
[4] -1

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 Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion
> has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards
> consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep
> it to binding votes only ?
>
>
> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to
> deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have a
> second distribution with the original console
> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.
>
> Here’s my vote:
>
> [1]. +1
> [2]  0
> [3] 0
> [4] -1
>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Daniel Kulp
In reply to this post by rajdavies

On Jan 17, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>
>> Not sure what a vote would accomplish that this discussion hasn’t already shown.    It looks to me like there is consensus to move the console to a sub project thing (I suppose a vote on that might make sense to verify), but it also looks like there is at least one PMC member that feels there needs to be a distribution similar to what you have today that includes it.  I’m not sure a vote would change that (but I could be wrong).
>>
>> Remember, Apache communities are NOT democracies, they are consensus driven communities.   Votes should be used just to test/verify consensus. (other than release votes, they are different)  If a consensus cannot be achieved, then status quo remains.  In other words, if you cannot find the common ground that everyone CAN agree on, then nothing will change and what you have today remains.   Just keep that in mind.  Pushing hard for things that are highly unlikely to obtain consensus will just result in heated and unpleasant arguments which can harm the community.
>
> More of a poll than a vote - and you haven’t seen what is says yet!

Since you don’t want me to respond on the poll thread…..

IMO, just rebranding for #3 is not enough, but is certainly the first and most obvious part….  The Apache ActiveMQ community needs to be in complete control over how the ActiveMQ part is presented to the user which would include the documentation on the ActiveMQ web site, the code to process the ActiveMQ data in the ActiveMQ git repo, etc….     So, in order for #3 to happen, I think the hawt.io community would have to be willing to donate those parts to ActiveMQ.   That something that would  need to be taken up with them.  



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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

James Strachan-2
In reply to this post by rajdavies
[1] +1
[2] -1 since we'd be effectively endorsing deprecated, dead code which is
potentially a security risk. I'd change this to a 0 if we clearly called
the distro "apache-activemq-deprecated-distro" or something to highlight
users are using dead, unmaintained code that probably has security
vulnerabilities
[3] 0
[4] -1



On 17 January 2014 13:33, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion
> has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards
> consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep
> it to binding votes only ?
>
>
> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to
> deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have a
> second distribution with the original console
> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.
>
> Here’s my vote:
>
> [1]. +1
> [2]  0
> [3] 0
> [4] -1
>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
>
>


--
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: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

tabish121@gmail.com
In reply to this post by rajdavies
[1] +1
[2] -1
[3] 0
[4] -1

On 01/17/2014 08:33 AM, Robert Davies wrote:

> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it to binding votes only ?
>  
>
> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have a second distribution with the original console
> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.
>
> Here’s my vote:
>
> [1]. +1
> [2]  0
> [3] 0
> [4] -1
>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
>
>


--
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: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

gtully
In reply to this post by rajdavies
[1]  0
[2]  -1
[3]  +1
[4]  -1

On 17 January 2014 13:33, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it to binding votes only ?
>
>
> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have a second distribution with the original console
> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.
>
> Here’s my vote:
>
> [1]. +1
> [2]  0
> [3] 0
> [4] -1
>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
>



--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by rajdavies
[1] -1 (not a great idea to remove something still used and useful)
[2] +1 (status quo)
[3] -1 (unless relevant parts were donated to the ASF)
[4] +1 (status quo)

Another -1 for the idea of not including users/devs/committers in this
poll. Their voice counts.

Hadrian


On 01/17/2014 08:33 AM, Robert Davies wrote:

> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it to binding votes only ?
>
>
> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have a second distribution with the original console
> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.
>
> Here’s my vote:
>
> [1]. +1
> [2]  0
> [3] 0
> [4] -1
>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

chirino
In reply to this post by rajdavies
[1] +1 This would let users choose which console they want.
[2] -1 I think having 2 distros would just add confusion for end users.
[3] 0  As long as it's ActiveMQ branded, then it works for me.
[4] -1 The original console is a liability that I'd rather not carry anymore.

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it to binding votes only ?
>
>
> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have a second distribution with the original console
> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.
>
> Here’s my vote:
>
> [1]. +1
> [2]  0
> [3] 0
> [4] -1
>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
>



--
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
|

Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Claus Ibsen
In reply to this post by rajdavies
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it to binding votes only ?
>
>
> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have a second distribution with the original console
> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.
>
> Here’s my vote:
>
> [1]. +1
> [2]  0
> [3] 0
> [4] -1
>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
>

[1]: +1
[2]: -1  - there should be an even playing field for consoles. And the
original console should be moved to a sub project, where it has its
own release schedule. Installing any console into AMQ should be
similar and the same for all consoles, such as copying a .war into a
special directory. And optionally copy a configuration file into the
same dir, to override the default configuration of that installed
console. So ActiveMQ should have only one distribution, to have even
playing field. But installing a console is end user choice, and they
can choose what console to install / use if they want.
[3]: -1: see #2
[4]: -1


--
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
|

Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

ceposta
In reply to this post by rajdavies
[1] +1 -- this gives the user choice -- if they choose the old
console, they accept the risks by doing so
[2] -1 -- this still endorses the old console, which should be treated
as deprecated, EOL, and removed
[3] 0 -- this seems to be a huge can of worms, yet probably beneficial
for the community
[4] -1 -- this still endorses the old console, which should be treated
as deprecated, EOL, and removed



On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it to binding votes only ?
>
>
> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have a second distribution with the original console
> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.
>
> Here’s my vote:
>
> [1]. +1
> [2]  0
> [3] 0
> [4] -1
>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
>



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

Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

James Carman
In reply to this post by rajdavies
Can we get a rundown of the issues with the current console?  I don't
really see a lot of traffic on here complaining about it.  Nobody has
really touched it in a long time, right?  So, why not get some folks
who are interested in it to work on it?  I'd be willing to help with
it.


On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it to binding votes only ?
>
>
> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have a second distribution with the original console
> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.
>
> Here’s my vote:
>
> [1]. +1
> [2]  0
> [3] 0
> [4] -1
>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

James Carman
In reply to this post by rajdavies
1. -1
2. -1
3. -1
4. +1
5. Resurrect the "old" console and bring it up-to-date, fixing any
outstanding bugs - +1


On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it to binding votes only ?
>
>
> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have a second distribution with the original console
> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.
>
> Here’s my vote:
>
> [1]. +1
> [2]  0
> [3] 0
> [4] -1
>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Hadrian Zbarcea
James,

5. Is just business as usual, why should it be part of the poll? Users
raise an issue, it gets fixed.

My $0.02,
Hadrian


On 01/17/2014 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:

> 1. -1
> 2. -1
> 3. -1
> 4. +1
> 5. Resurrect the "old" console and bring it up-to-date, fixing any
> outstanding bugs - +1
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because opinion has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to move towards consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the noise, can we keep it to binding votes only ?
>>
>>
>> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones).
>> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console  - and have a second distribution with the original console
>> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console -  ActiveMQ branded.
>> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only.
>>
>> Here’s my vote:
>>
>> [1]. +1
>> [2]  0
>> [3] 0
>> [4] -1
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Rob
>>
1234