[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: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

James Carman
Agreed.  My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console that
comes with ActiveMQ.  A messaging "product" should have its own
console, if it is to be taken seriously by potential "customers".
Providing an even playing field for consoles shouldn't be ActiveMQ's
primary concern.  ActiveMQ should concern itself with providing a
best-of-breed messaging system, which should include a management
console.

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Chris Mattmann
In reply to this post by rajdavies
Hi Everyone,

I reported at the board meeting two days ago that you guys
are making steps towards addressing this. The big issue that
still remains is that hawtio in its current form unbranded
as the default Apache ActiveMQ console must be fixed ASAP and
addressed. *How* that is done is currently being discussed, but
realize that discussion needs to conclude in a reasonable time
frame, let's say before the next board meeting 3rd week of February 2014.

Cheers,
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
Date: Friday, January 17, 2014 1:32 AM
To: <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

>This discussion has been open a while - not exactly consensus but then
>there¹s 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 can¹t use anything else?.
>We have to get this resolved quickly - so I¹ll 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
>>>doesn¹t 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]
>>><a href="https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%2">https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%2
>>>0AND%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

Hadrian Zbarcea
Chris, agree. Yesterday I committed Dan Kulp's patch that reverts back
to the original ActiveMQ console. At this point, the hawt.io console is
not in the trunk and won't be in the next release in this shape. The
only release that shipped with the hawt.io console is 5.9.0, but that's
not much we can do about that. I volunteered to release shortly a 5.9.1
version (with the original console). Hopefully a final decision about
the future of the ActiveMQ console will be reached before the next board
meeting, as you recommend.

Thanks,
Hadrian



On 01/17/2014 12:20 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I reported at the board meeting two days ago that you guys
> are making steps towards addressing this. The big issue that
> still remains is that hawtio in its current form unbranded
> as the default Apache ActiveMQ console must be fixed ASAP and
> addressed. *How* that is done is currently being discussed, but
> realize that discussion needs to conclude in a reasonable time
> frame, let's say before the next board meeting 3rd week of February 2014.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
> Date: Friday, January 17, 2014 1:32 AM
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console
>
>> This discussion has been open a while - not exactly consensus but then
>> there¹s 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 can¹t use anything else?.
>> We have to get this resolved quickly - so I¹ll 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
>>>> doesn¹t 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]
>>>> <a href="https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%2">https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%2
>>>> 0AND%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: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

rajdavies
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
>
> Another -1 for the idea of not including users/devs/committers in this poll. Their voice counts.

Yes - not ideal but if we can’t get consensus amongst a smaller group, there’s no hope of a larger one. So just starting small to see what happens.

>
>
>
> 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
>>

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

Chris Mattmann-2
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
Hadrian awesome job and you rock.

I will report this at the board meeting in Feb.

Thanks dudes

Cheers,
Chris

------------------------
Chris Mattmann
[hidden email]




-----Original Message-----
From: Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
Date: Friday, January 17, 2014 10:09 AM
To: <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

>Chris, agree. Yesterday I committed Dan Kulp's patch that reverts back
>to the original ActiveMQ console. At this point, the hawt.io console is
>not in the trunk and won't be in the next release in this shape. The
>only release that shipped with the hawt.io console is 5.9.0, but that's
>not much we can do about that. I volunteered to release shortly a 5.9.1
>version (with the original console). Hopefully a final decision about
>the future of the ActiveMQ console will be reached before the next board
>meeting, as you recommend.
>
>Thanks,
>Hadrian
>
>
>
>On 01/17/2014 12:20 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I reported at the board meeting two days ago that you guys
>> are making steps towards addressing this. The big issue that
>> still remains is that hawtio in its current form unbranded
>> as the default Apache ActiveMQ console must be fixed ASAP and
>> addressed. *How* that is done is currently being discussed, but
>> realize that discussion needs to conclude in a reasonable time
>> frame, let's say before the next board meeting 3rd week of February
>>2014.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
>> Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Friday, January 17, 2014 1:32 AM
>> To: <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the old ActiveMQ Console
>>
>>> This discussion has been open a while - not exactly consensus but then
>>> there¹s 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 can¹t use anything else?.
>>> We have to get this resolved quickly - so I¹ll 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
>>>>> doesn¹t 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
>>>>>%2
>>>>> 0AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
>>>>> [2]
>>>>>
>>>>>http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.ht
>>>>>ml
>>>>>
>>>>> 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: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

rajdavies
In reply to this post by James Carman

On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:18, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

There are about 21 open issues in jira - but that’s not the problem. The problem is ithe console is  more than 5 years out of date and needs to be completely rewritten from scratch.
As always, contributions always welcome.

>
>
> 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
>>

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: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

rajdavies
In reply to this post by James Carman

On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Agreed.  My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console that
> comes with ActiveMQ.  A messaging "product" should have its own
> console, if it is to be taken seriously by potential "customers”.

I don’t buy in to that at all - having to hit refresh on the web browser in 2014 to see if the message count has increased  just doesn’t cut it - and it hasn’t for a long time.
As has been said before, the argument about shipping a console to compete can be used for a container too - but Karaf doesn’t, it makes it optional - and that’s a valid point of view that’s worth replicating.

> Providing an even playing field for consoles shouldn't be ActiveMQ's
> primary concern.  ActiveMQ should concern itself with providing a
> best-of-breed messaging system, which should include a management
> console.

Or point people to a host of alternatives that would enhance the user experience.  What I really don’t understand is that the people who are active committers, and actually fix the security issues as they come are all saying get rid of the console and our views are being ignored.  Its not our core competence, nor should it have to be - we are writing a message broker. If you feel strongly about it you are of course more than welcome to help write a new console that can be incorporated at a later date.

>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 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
>>>>
>>

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: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

James Carman
Karaf ships with a console

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

>
> On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Agreed.  My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console that
> > comes with ActiveMQ.  A messaging "product" should have its own
> > console, if it is to be taken seriously by potential "customers”.
>
> I don’t buy in to that at all - having to hit refresh on the web browser
> in 2014 to see if the message count has increased  just doesn’t cut it -
> and it hasn’t for a long time.
> As has been said before, the argument about shipping a console to compete
> can be used for a container too - but Karaf doesn’t, it makes it optional -
> and that’s a valid point of view that’s worth replicating.
>
> > Providing an even playing field for consoles shouldn't be ActiveMQ's
> > primary concern.  ActiveMQ should concern itself with providing a
> > best-of-breed messaging system, which should include a management
> > console.
>
> Or point people to a host of alternatives that would enhance the user
> experience.  What I really don’t understand is that the people who are
> active committers, and actually fix the security issues as they come are
> all saying get rid of the console and our views are being ignored.  Its not
> our core competence, nor should it have to be - we are writing a message
> broker. If you feel strongly about it you are of course more than welcome
> to help write a new console that can be incorporated at a later date.
>
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >> 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]<javascript:;>
> >
> >>> 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
> >>>>
> >>
>
> 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: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

rajdavies

On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:53, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Karaf ships with a console

Yes - its not installed by default - which is equivalent to option 1.

>
> On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed.  My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console that
>>> comes with ActiveMQ.  A messaging "product" should have its own
>>> console, if it is to be taken seriously by potential "customers”.
>>
>> I don’t buy in to that at all - having to hit refresh on the web browser
>> in 2014 to see if the message count has increased  just doesn’t cut it -
>> and it hasn’t for a long time.
>> As has been said before, the argument about shipping a console to compete
>> can be used for a container too - but Karaf doesn’t, it makes it optional -
>> and that’s a valid point of view that’s worth replicating.
>>
>>> Providing an even playing field for consoles shouldn't be ActiveMQ's
>>> primary concern.  ActiveMQ should concern itself with providing a
>>> best-of-breed messaging system, which should include a management
>>> console.
>>
>> Or point people to a host of alternatives that would enhance the user
>> experience.  What I really don’t understand is that the people who are
>> active committers, and actually fix the security issues as they come are
>> all saying get rid of the console and our views are being ignored.  Its not
>> our core competence, nor should it have to be - we are writing a message
>> broker. If you feel strongly about it you are of course more than welcome
>> to help write a new console that can be incorporated at a later date.
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>>> 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]<javascript:;>
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Rob Davies
>> ————————
>> Red Hat, Inc
>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>> Twitter: rajdavies
>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>
>>

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: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Hadrian Zbarcea
Rob, that's not quite correct. Karaf *ships with a console*, ActiveMQ
also ships with a console. The issue we are discussing now is the distro
content, right?

Hadrian



On 01/17/2014 05:07 PM, Robert Davies wrote:

>
> On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:53, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Karaf ships with a console
>
> Yes - its not installed by default - which is equivalent to option 1.
>
>>
>> On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agreed.  My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console that
>>>> comes with ActiveMQ.  A messaging "product" should have its own
>>>> console, if it is to be taken seriously by potential "customers”.
>>>
>>> I don’t buy in to that at all - having to hit refresh on the web browser
>>> in 2014 to see if the message count has increased  just doesn’t cut it -
>>> and it hasn’t for a long time.
>>> As has been said before, the argument about shipping a console to compete
>>> can be used for a container too - but Karaf doesn’t, it makes it optional -
>>> and that’s a valid point of view that’s worth replicating.
>>>
>>>> Providing an even playing field for consoles shouldn't be ActiveMQ's
>>>> primary concern.  ActiveMQ should concern itself with providing a
>>>> best-of-breed messaging system, which should include a management
>>>> console.
>>>
>>> Or point people to a host of alternatives that would enhance the user
>>> experience.  What I really don’t understand is that the people who are
>>> active committers, and actually fix the security issues as they come are
>>> all saying get rid of the console and our views are being ignored.  Its not
>>> our core competence, nor should it have to be - we are writing a message
>>> broker. If you feel strongly about it you are of course more than welcome
>>> to help write a new console that can be incorporated at a later date.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 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]<javascript:;>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Rob Davies
>>> ————————
>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>
>>>
>
> 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: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

James Carman
In reply to this post by rajdavies
It has the tui on by default

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

>
> On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:53, James Carman <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Karaf ships with a console
>
> Yes - its not installed by default - which is equivalent to option 1.
>
> >
> > On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman <[hidden email]<javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Agreed.  My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console that
> >>> comes with ActiveMQ.  A messaging "product" should have its own
> >>> console, if it is to be taken seriously by potential "customers”.
> >>
> >> I don’t buy in to that at all - having to hit refresh on the web browser
> >> in 2014 to see if the message count has increased  just doesn’t cut it -
> >> and it hasn’t for a long time.
> >> As has been said before, the argument about shipping a console to
> compete
> >> can be used for a container too - but Karaf doesn’t, it makes it
> optional -
> >> and that’s a valid point of view that’s worth replicating.
> >>
> >>> Providing an even playing field for consoles shouldn't be ActiveMQ's
> >>> primary concern.  ActiveMQ should concern itself with providing a
> >>> best-of-breed messaging system, which should include a management
> >>> console.
> >>
> >> Or point people to a host of alternatives that would enhance the user
> >> experience.  What I really don’t understand is that the people who are
> >> active committers, and actually fix the security issues as they come are
> >> all saying get rid of the console and our views are being ignored.  Its
> not
> >> our core competence, nor should it have to be - we are writing a message
> >> broker. If you feel strongly about it you are of course more than
> welcome
> >> to help write a new console that can be incorporated at a later date.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]<javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> 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]<javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> >>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> Rob Davies
> >> ————————
> >> Red Hat, Inc
> >> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
> >> Twitter: rajdavies
> >> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
> >> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
> >>
> >>
>
> 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: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

ceposta
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
well, karaf does ship with a console, the command-line shell.

but i think we're talking about the web console.

in 2.3.3, i don't see a webconsole shipped in the distro:

http://pastebin.com/zepcUHMX

in 3.0.0 i don't either:

http://pastebin.com/cfV3yG0Z


On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Rob, that's not quite correct. Karaf *ships with a console*, ActiveMQ also
> ships with a console. The issue we are discussing now is the distro content,
> right?
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
>
> On 01/17/2014 05:07 PM, Robert Davies wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:53, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Karaf ships with a console
>>
>>
>> Yes - its not installed by default - which is equivalent to option 1.
>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman
>>>> <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Agreed.  My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console that
>>>>> comes with ActiveMQ.  A messaging "product" should have its own
>>>>> console, if it is to be taken seriously by potential "customers”.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don’t buy in to that at all - having to hit refresh on the web browser
>>>> in 2014 to see if the message count has increased  just doesn’t cut it -
>>>> and it hasn’t for a long time.
>>>> As has been said before, the argument about shipping a console to
>>>> compete
>>>> can be used for a container too - but Karaf doesn’t, it makes it
>>>> optional -
>>>> and that’s a valid point of view that’s worth replicating.
>>>>
>>>>> Providing an even playing field for consoles shouldn't be ActiveMQ's
>>>>> primary concern.  ActiveMQ should concern itself with providing a
>>>>> best-of-breed messaging system, which should include a management
>>>>> console.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or point people to a host of alternatives that would enhance the user
>>>> experience.  What I really don’t understand is that the people who are
>>>> active committers, and actually fix the security issues as they come are
>>>> all saying get rid of the console and our views are being ignored.  Its
>>>> not
>>>> our core competence, nor should it have to be - we are writing a message
>>>> broker. If you feel strongly about it you are of course more than
>>>> welcome
>>>> to help write a new console that can be incorporated at a later date.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea
>>>>> <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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]<javascript:;>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rob Davies
>>>> ————————
>>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Rob Davies
>> ————————
>> Red Hat, Inc
>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>> Twitter: rajdavies
>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>
>>
>



--
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
I said console in my statement, not web console.  You need a way to manage
stuff.

On Friday, January 17, 2014, Christian Posta <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> well, karaf does ship with a console, the command-line shell.
>
> but i think we're talking about the web console.
>
> in 2.3.3, i don't see a webconsole shipped in the distro:
>
> http://pastebin.com/zepcUHMX
>
> in 3.0.0 i don't either:
>
> http://pastebin.com/cfV3yG0Z
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Rob, that's not quite correct. Karaf *ships with a console*, ActiveMQ
> also
> > ships with a console. The issue we are discussing now is the distro
> content,
> > right?
> >
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 01/17/2014 05:07 PM, Robert Davies wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:53, James Carman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Karaf ships with a console
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes - its not installed by default - which is equivalent to option 1.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Friday, January 17, 2014, Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:33, James Carman
> >>>> <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Agreed.  My point was that we shouldn't just abandon the console that
> >>>>> comes with ActiveMQ.  A messaging "product" should have its own
> >>>>> console, if it is to be taken seriously by potential "customers”.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don’t buy in to that at all - having to hit refresh on the web
> browser
> >>>> in 2014 to see if the message count has increased  just doesn’t cut
> it -
> >>>> and it hasn’t for a long time.
> >>>> As has been said before, the argument about shipping a console to
> >>>> compete
> >>>> can be used for a container too - but Karaf doesn’t, it makes it
> >>>> optional -
> >>>> and that’s a valid point of view that’s worth replicating.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Providing an even playing field for consoles shouldn't be ActiveMQ's
> >>>>> primary concern.  ActiveMQ should concern itself with providing a
> >>>>> best-of-breed messaging system, which should include a management
> >>>>> console.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Or point people to a host of alternatives that would enhance the user
> >>>> experience.  What I really don’t understand is that the people who are
> >>>> active committers, and actually fix the security issues as they come
> are
> >>>> all saying get rid of the console and our views are being ignored.
>  Its
> >>>> not
> >>>> our core competence, nor should it have to be - we are writing a
> message
> >>>> broker. If you feel strongly about it you are of course more than
> >>>> welcome
> >>>> to help write a new console that can be incorporated at a later date.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea
> >>>>> <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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]<javascript:;>
> --
> Christian Posta
> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
> twitter: @christianposta
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

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

Using the webconsole for development/debugging purposes is extremely
helpful.  When moving to production systems, it should be a simple matter
to turn it off.  This is no different than removing debug code from your
build when deploying.



On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:33 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

gtully
In reply to this post by rajdavies
There are a lot of 0s and +1s for option [3] and two -1s

Let me make a case for it to try and get consensus around it.

I want to 'replace' the existing web console with something better.
For configuration activemq did not build a dependency injection
framework, we shipped spring.
Learning from that, it does not make sense to me that we build and
maintain a html5 web console.

An admin/management web front end based over our extensive JMX api
sounds perfect but it needs
a community to evolve and improve it. We (activemq committers) have
proven that we need help in that area.

Anyone what to change their vote or further expand on the technical
reasons we should not be branding hatwio?


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

Daniel Kulp

There is a huge difference between “needing help” in that area (as you put it)  and “having someone else do it for us”.  

For #3 to work, IMO two things need to be done:

1) Skinning (obvious)

2) All the ActiveMQ related code needs to be moved into the ActiveMQ project.   If someone is using ActiveMQ and wants to contribute changes to how the console looks or displays items or such, they should be making contributions to ActiveMQ, not some external community (open source, free, or otherwise).   The hawt.io “framework” of libraries and such can remain outside, but the ActiveMQ specific portions needs to be part of this community.   If it’s going to be the visible frontend of this project, we need to make sure it drives the developer willing to contribute enhancements into ActiveMQ.

If the hawt.io  community is unwilling (or unable) to do the second part, then, IMO, #3 is a non-starter.  If they ARE willing to do that, then great.   Lets start figuring out how to get that done.   But that’s something that would  need to be discussed on their side first.


Dan



On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There are a lot of 0s and +1s for option [3] and two -1s
>
> Let me make a case for it to try and get consensus around it.
>
> I want to 'replace' the existing web console with something better.
> For configuration activemq did not build a dependency injection
> framework, we shipped spring.
> Learning from that, it does not make sense to me that we build and
> maintain a html5 web console.
>
> An admin/management web front end based over our extensive JMX api
> sounds perfect but it needs
> a community to evolve and improve it. We (activemq committers) have
> proven that we need help in that area.
>
> Anyone what to change their vote or further expand on the technical
> reasons we should not be branding hatwio?
>
>
> 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

--
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

Hadrian Zbarcea
Agree.

In the other thread it was clarified why the hawt.io console in the
current form cannot be included in the activemq distro. I would have
expected the hawt.io devs to come with a proposal on how they plan to
address that if they want #3 to happen. Suggestions were offered, but I
saw no reply or feedback. Continuing this conversation without an
understanding of what the hawt.io devs intentions are is, imo, not a
great use of time.

My $0.02,
Hadrian



On 01/21/2014 11:30 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:

>
> There is a huge difference between “needing help” in that area (as you put it)  and “having someone else do it for us”.
>
> For #3 to work, IMO two things need to be done:
>
> 1) Skinning (obvious)
>
> 2) All the ActiveMQ related code needs to be moved into the ActiveMQ project.   If someone is using ActiveMQ and wants to contribute changes to how the console looks or displays items or such, they should be making contributions to ActiveMQ, not some external community (open source, free, or otherwise).   The hawt.io “framework” of libraries and such can remain outside, but the ActiveMQ specific portions needs to be part of this community.   If it’s going to be the visible frontend of this project, we need to make sure it drives the developer willing to contribute enhancements into ActiveMQ.
>
> If the hawt.io  community is unwilling (or unable) to do the second part, then, IMO, #3 is a non-starter.  If they ARE willing to do that, then great.   Lets start figuring out how to get that done.   But that’s something that would  need to be discussed on their side first.
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> There are a lot of 0s and +1s for option [3] and two -1s
>>
>> Let me make a case for it to try and get consensus around it.
>>
>> I want to 'replace' the existing web console with something better.
>> For configuration activemq did not build a dependency injection
>> framework, we shipped spring.
>> Learning from that, it does not make sense to me that we build and
>> maintain a html5 web console.
>>
>> An admin/management web front end based over our extensive JMX api
>> sounds perfect but it needs
>> a community to evolve and improve it. We (activemq committers) have
>> proven that we need help in that area.
>>
>> Anyone what to change their vote or further expand on the technical
>> reasons we should not be branding hatwio?
>>
>>
>> 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

gtully
In reply to this post by Daniel Kulp
inline

On 21 January 2014 16:30, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> There is a huge difference between “needing help” in that area (as you put it)  and “having someone else do it for us”.
>
This is my point. A new project has already done it and it is great
(being a great web ui is their whole reason for being).
We no longer need help we just need to embrace it.

> For #3 to work, IMO two things need to be done:
>
> 1) Skinning (obvious)
yes.

>
> 2) All the ActiveMQ related code needs to be moved into the ActiveMQ project.   If someone is using ActiveMQ and wants to contribute changes to how the console looks or displays items or such, they should be making contributions to ActiveMQ, not some external community (open source, free, or otherwise).   The hawt.io “framework” of libraries and such can remain outside, but the ActiveMQ specific portions needs to be part of this community.   If it’s going to be the visible frontend of this project, we need to make sure it drives the developer willing to contribute enhancements into ActiveMQ.
>
This is putting the cart before the horse!
If we need some changes and if we can't make contributions to hawtio
(patches, issues etc) we can deal with that by building our own plugin
or throwing it out or whatever. But why do that now?

We don't have to own everything that makes activemq better and that
makes our users experience better, we just have to ensure that it is
better.

> If the hawt.io  community is unwilling (or unable) to do the second part, then, IMO, #3 is a non-starter.  If they ARE willing to do that, then great.   Lets start figuring out how to get that done.   But that’s something that would  need to be discussed on their side first.
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> There are a lot of 0s and +1s for option [3] and two -1s
>>
>> Let me make a case for it to try and get consensus around it.
>>
>> I want to 'replace' the existing web console with something better.
>> For configuration activemq did not build a dependency injection
>> framework, we shipped spring.
>> Learning from that, it does not make sense to me that we build and
>> maintain a html5 web console.
>>
>> An admin/management web front end based over our extensive JMX api
>> sounds perfect but it needs
>> a community to evolve and improve it. We (activemq committers) have
>> proven that we need help in that area.
>>
>> Anyone what to change their vote or further expand on the technical
>> reasons we should not be branding hatwio?
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>



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

Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

gtully
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
hadrian, it is the activemq devs that want to include hawtio, not the
other way around.
lets concentrate on what we (activemq devs/pmc) can do to make the web
experience better.
The only technical issue with hawtio in 5.9 is the branding. I say we
just fix that.

On 21 January 2014 17:00, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Agree.
>
> In the other thread it was clarified why the hawt.io console in the current
> form cannot be included in the activemq distro. I would have expected the
> hawt.io devs to come with a proposal on how they plan to address that if
> they want #3 to happen. Suggestions were offered, but I saw no reply or
> feedback. Continuing this conversation without an understanding of what the
> hawt.io devs intentions are is, imo, not a great use of time.
>
> My $0.02,
> Hadrian
>
>
>
>
> On 01/21/2014 11:30 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>>
>> There is a huge difference between “needing help” in that area (as you put
>> it)  and “having someone else do it for us”.
>>
>> For #3 to work, IMO two things need to be done:
>>
>> 1) Skinning (obvious)
>>
>> 2) All the ActiveMQ related code needs to be moved into the ActiveMQ
>> project.   If someone is using ActiveMQ and wants to contribute changes to
>> how the console looks or displays items or such, they should be making
>> contributions to ActiveMQ, not some external community (open source, free,
>> or otherwise).   The hawt.io “framework” of libraries and such can remain
>> outside, but the ActiveMQ specific portions needs to be part of this
>> community.   If it’s going to be the visible frontend of this project, we
>> need to make sure it drives the developer willing to contribute enhancements
>> into ActiveMQ.
>>
>> If the hawt.io  community is unwilling (or unable) to do the second part,
>> then, IMO, #3 is a non-starter.  If they ARE willing to do that, then great.
>> Lets start figuring out how to get that done.   But that’s something that
>> would  need to be discussed on their side first.
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> There are a lot of 0s and +1s for option [3] and two -1s
>>>
>>> Let me make a case for it to try and get consensus around it.
>>>
>>> I want to 'replace' the existing web console with something better.
>>> For configuration activemq did not build a dependency injection
>>> framework, we shipped spring.
>>> Learning from that, it does not make sense to me that we build and
>>> maintain a html5 web console.
>>>
>>> An admin/management web front end based over our extensive JMX api
>>> sounds perfect but it needs
>>> a community to evolve and improve it. We (activemq committers) have
>>> proven that we need help in that area.
>>>
>>> Anyone what to change their vote or further expand on the technical
>>> reasons we should not be branding hatwio?
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>



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

Re: [POLL] - Remove the old ActiveMQ Console

Daniel Kulp
In reply to this post by gtully

On Jan 21, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 21 January 2014 16:30, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 2) All the ActiveMQ related code needs to be moved into the ActiveMQ project.   If someone is using ActiveMQ and wants to contribute changes to how the console looks or displays items or such, they should be making contributions to ActiveMQ, not some external community (open source, free, or otherwise).   The hawt.io “framework” of libraries and such can remain outside, but the ActiveMQ specific portions needs to be part of this community.   If it’s going to be the visible frontend of this project, we need to make sure it drives the developer willing to contribute enhancements into ActiveMQ.
>>
> This is putting the cart before the horse!
> If we need some changes and if we can't make contributions to hawtio
> (patches, issues etc) we can deal with that by building our own plugin
> or throwing it out or whatever. But why do that now?

You are basically asking THIS developer community to completely give up control over how ActiveMQ is presented to the users to a different community.   I personally cannot think of anything much worse for this community than that.   That seems like a horrible idea from an Apache community standpoint.

The goals of the Apache communities needs to be to make sure developers are driven into the Apache communities, not another community.  

> We don't have to own everything that makes activemq better and that
> makes our users experience better, we just have to ensure that it is
> better.

Making the user experience better is certainly an important aspect of the Apache communities, but the primary focus should be on making sure the developer community is healthy and we aren’t driving potential developers elsewhere.   That NEEDS to be the most important thing at this point, especially with the current active makeup of this community.

In particular, since Apache is a 503b charitable non-profit foundation, we cannot be used to promote other communities, particularly those “owned” by a for-profit entity.  (open source or otherwise, that’s somewhat irrelevant)

Anyway, as far as *I’m* concerned (but I’m not a member of this PMC, just an interested party), if the hawt.io community is unwilling or unable to support the ActiveMQ community to allow ActiveMQ to maintain control over it’s user experience, then there is no-point engaging with them.  It is a waste of time.

That said, if hawt.io community want to create a full distribution of ActiveMQ + hawt.io to make life easier for users, they certainly are welcome to do so as long as it’s not branded ActiveMQ.  (and again, not something to be promoted here)

Dan


> If the hawt.io  community is unwilling (or unable) to do the second part, then, IMO, #3 is a non-starter.  If they ARE willing to do that, then great.   Lets start figuring out how to get that done.   But that’s something that would  need to be discussed on their side first.
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> There are a lot of 0s and +1s for option [3] and two -1s
>>>
>>> Let me make a case for it to try and get consensus around it.
>>>
>>> I want to 'replace' the existing web console with something better.
>>> For configuration activemq did not build a dependency injection
>>> framework, we shipped spring.
>>> Learning from that, it does not make sense to me that we build and
>>> maintain a html5 web console.
>>>
>>> An admin/management web front end based over our extensive JMX api
>>> sounds perfect but it needs
>>> a community to evolve and improve it. We (activemq committers) have
>>> proven that we need help in that area.
>>>
>>> Anyone what to change their vote or further expand on the technical
>>> reasons we should not be branding hatwio?
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://redhat.com
> http://blog.garytully.com

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

1234