Default Web Console

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

Default Web Console

Chris Mattmann
Hi Guys,


First let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Mattmann and I'm
currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the goings-on
related to the recent change in the web console, where now it appears
the first link on a standard deployment of ActiveMQ and its web console
points to a web console from hawtio.

I don't really have any skin in the game on which company built what, or
who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a decade and
have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a number of
the ASF's largest projects.

I *do* however have a problem that the ActiveMQ PMC now is stewarded a
product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with a web
console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least to be
a specific company's product *hawtio web console*.

With my Director hat on -- this is unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
So let's discuss how this came about, and what can be done to fix it.
I don't have time and haven't read through all the prior history and
threads, but I'm happy to read through links folks have for me to check
out,
and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It can be
addressed
in various ways, so let's talk about it.

Cheers,
Chris


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Default Web Console

James Strachan-2
Hey Chris

So hawtio is a ASL licensed community open source project; its not a
company product or commercial tool. There are committers from different
companies on it.
http://hawt.io/

but if folks are worried about having a console from a different open
source project inside ActiveMQ we can easily rip it out; it was only added
to try give users a better experience of using ActiveMQ (particularly as
the old-not-really-maintained console sucks ass & is huge).



On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
>
> First let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Mattmann and I'm
> currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the goings-on
> related to the recent change in the web console, where now it appears
> the first link on a standard deployment of ActiveMQ and its web console
> points to a web console from hawtio.
>
> I don't really have any skin in the game on which company built what, or
> who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a decade and
> have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a number of
> the ASF's largest projects.
>
> I *do* however have a problem that the ActiveMQ PMC now is stewarded a
> product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with a web
> console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least to be
> a specific company's product *hawtio web console*.
>
> With my Director hat on -- this is unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
> So let's discuss how this came about, and what can be done to fix it.
> I don't have time and haven't read through all the prior history and
> threads, but I'm happy to read through links folks have for me to check
> out,
> and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It can be
> addressed
> in various ways, so let's talk about it.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>


--
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: Default Web Console

Chris Mattmann
Hi James,

Thanks for your quick reply!


Some comments below:

-----Original Message-----
From: James Strachan <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:42 AM
To: <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Default Web Console

>Hey Chris
>
>So hawtio is a ASL licensed community open source project; its not a
>company product or commercial tool. There are committers from different
>companies on it.
>http://hawt.io/

Gotcha, OK. That being said, even if hawtio is a community supported
project
(which that's great, glad to hear it) and that it's ALv2 licensed, as it
stands
from what I can see that particular product has no Apache ActiveMQ, let
alone
Apache branding on it at all, whereas the former old-not-really-maintained
console
has Apache branding all over it. Is the hawtio product customizable? Does
it allow skinning?
If it does that's one thing; and an incremental step that can be taken by
the
Apache ActiveMQ PMC to make the products that it ships (which may include
dependencies
on software that enhance user experience) respect the fact that they are
Apache products.

Beyond skinning, the Apache ActiveMQ PMC should also consider strong
dependencies on external products that aren't supporting products, but in
fact
major architectural elements to be something that in general is a bad
practice.
This is mostly because the Apache ActiveMQ PMC can only be responsible for
stewarding
the software that it produces. Thought hawtio is community led, and though
it's ALv2
licensed, it's not the ActiveMQ PMC and thus subject to its own committers
and PMC
members itches that they are scratching, and subject to its own release
schedule
and ultimately subject to its own merit and stewardship. So, ultimately
it's different,
and having strong dependencies from Apache products on external elements
outside of
the stewardship of the PMC is certainly allowed but it just introduces
checks and
balances both social, and technical (as well as political too from what
I've seen)
that ultimately in the end create more work. I realize that folks may wear
different
hats, and may wear multiple hats (for example, are there are hawtio
community members
who are also Apache ActiveMQ PMC members here? if so, please let me know)
- but
when you're at the ASF you need to wear you're ASF hat over here. So you
just
need to consider those things (not "you" specifically I'm using the royal
"you"
referring to the ActiveMQ PMC members over here in ASF land).

>
>but if folks are worried about having a console from a different open
>source project inside ActiveMQ we can easily rip it out; it was only added
>to try give users a better experience of using ActiveMQ (particularly as
>the old-not-really-maintained console sucks ass & is huge).

Sure, I'm not worried about having a different console per se -- in fact,
I have no technical merit here in ActiveMQ land, so I don't really have a
say -- I'm over here as an ASF director b/c I've seen and heard things that
indicate to me that not only is the Apache ActiveMQ PMC taking technical
steps that don't respect the Apache brand, but there are also technical
connections being made to external software products where some of the
corporate influence issues I've seen in the past are coming up.

In response to the above about the comment about the existing
old-not-really-
maintained console "sucking ass", I would ask as an ASF member and ActiveMQ
PMC member per [1], wouldn't the goal then to be to make an Apache ActiveMQ
branded console that doesn't? If your answer is, step #1 was to introduce
hawtio
since it's great and blah blah; but step #2-N is to then skin it and make
it
Apache branded, etc., then that's a start at a roadmap to get in line with
what I would expect of an ASF PMC led by people who care about the ASF.
Beyond that, I would also ask you as an ASF member and Apache ActiveMQ
PMC member -- do you think it's a good idea to have dependencies on
something
as critical as user experience on software that isn't stewarded by the
Apache ActiveMQ PMC and maintained on ASF bits and hardware?


hawtio has every right to exist and should I'm not saying it shouldn't,
but typically
the way that works it that upstream or downstream software products to the
ASF
build on our ASF software and then may commercialize, etc or sell it but
that has to be different software since the ASF isn't a company and we
exist to provide open source software for the public good.

Cheers,
Chris


[1] http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#activemq

>
>
>
>On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>>
>> First let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Mattmann and I'm
>> currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the goings-on
>> related to the recent change in the web console, where now it appears
>> the first link on a standard deployment of ActiveMQ and its web console
>> points to a web console from hawtio.
>>
>> I don't really have any skin in the game on which company built what, or
>> who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a decade and
>> have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a number of
>> the ASF's largest projects.
>>
>> I *do* however have a problem that the ActiveMQ PMC now is stewarded a
>> product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with a web
>> console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least to be
>> a specific company's product *hawtio web console*.
>>
>> With my Director hat on -- this is unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
>> So let's discuss how this came about, and what can be done to fix it.
>> I don't have time and haven't read through all the prior history and
>> threads, but I'm happy to read through links folks have for me to check
>> out,
>> and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It can be
>> addressed
>> in various ways, so let's talk about it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>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: Default Web Console

rajdavies
The old console is really getting to a point of not being maintainable - so ideally it should be removed - and as ActiveMQ’s main focus is to be just a message broker it would be easier not to ship one at all (IIRC the majority of security issues for the ActiveMQ project have been  console related). I’m all for user experience  but we could just take the decision to not ship any console what so ever and just direct folks to a list of 3rd party consoles ?
 
On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:01, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> Thanks for your quick reply!
>
>
> Some comments below:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Strachan <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:42 AM
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Default Web Console
>
>> Hey Chris
>>
>> So hawtio is a ASL licensed community open source project; its not a
>> company product or commercial tool. There are committers from different
>> companies on it.
>> http://hawt.io/
>
> Gotcha, OK. That being said, even if hawtio is a community supported
> project
> (which that's great, glad to hear it) and that it's ALv2 licensed, as it
> stands
> from what I can see that particular product has no Apache ActiveMQ, let
> alone
> Apache branding on it at all, whereas the former old-not-really-maintained
> console
> has Apache branding all over it. Is the hawtio product customizable? Does
> it allow skinning?
> If it does that's one thing; and an incremental step that can be taken by
> the
> Apache ActiveMQ PMC to make the products that it ships (which may include
> dependencies
> on software that enhance user experience) respect the fact that they are
> Apache products.
>
> Beyond skinning, the Apache ActiveMQ PMC should also consider strong
> dependencies on external products that aren't supporting products, but in
> fact
> major architectural elements to be something that in general is a bad
> practice.
> This is mostly because the Apache ActiveMQ PMC can only be responsible for
> stewarding
> the software that it produces. Thought hawtio is community led, and though
> it's ALv2
> licensed, it's not the ActiveMQ PMC and thus subject to its own committers
> and PMC
> members itches that they are scratching, and subject to its own release
> schedule
> and ultimately subject to its own merit and stewardship. So, ultimately
> it's different,
> and having strong dependencies from Apache products on external elements
> outside of
> the stewardship of the PMC is certainly allowed but it just introduces
> checks and
> balances both social, and technical (as well as political too from what
> I've seen)
> that ultimately in the end create more work. I realize that folks may wear
> different
> hats, and may wear multiple hats (for example, are there are hawtio
> community members
> who are also Apache ActiveMQ PMC members here? if so, please let me know)
> - but
> when you're at the ASF you need to wear you're ASF hat over here. So you
> just
> need to consider those things (not "you" specifically I'm using the royal
> "you"
> referring to the ActiveMQ PMC members over here in ASF land).
>
>>
>> but if folks are worried about having a console from a different open
>> source project inside ActiveMQ we can easily rip it out; it was only added
>> to try give users a better experience of using ActiveMQ (particularly as
>> the old-not-really-maintained console sucks ass & is huge).
>
> Sure, I'm not worried about having a different console per se -- in fact,
> I have no technical merit here in ActiveMQ land, so I don't really have a
> say -- I'm over here as an ASF director b/c I've seen and heard things that
> indicate to me that not only is the Apache ActiveMQ PMC taking technical
> steps that don't respect the Apache brand, but there are also technical
> connections being made to external software products where some of the
> corporate influence issues I've seen in the past are coming up.
>
> In response to the above about the comment about the existing
> old-not-really-
> maintained console "sucking ass", I would ask as an ASF member and ActiveMQ
> PMC member per [1], wouldn't the goal then to be to make an Apache ActiveMQ
> branded console that doesn't? If your answer is, step #1 was to introduce
> hawtio
> since it's great and blah blah; but step #2-N is to then skin it and make
> it
> Apache branded, etc., then that's a start at a roadmap to get in line with
> what I would expect of an ASF PMC led by people who care about the ASF.
> Beyond that, I would also ask you as an ASF member and Apache ActiveMQ
> PMC member -- do you think it's a good idea to have dependencies on
> something
> as critical as user experience on software that isn't stewarded by the
> Apache ActiveMQ PMC and maintained on ASF bits and hardware?
>
>
> hawtio has every right to exist and should I'm not saying it shouldn't,
> but typically
> the way that works it that upstream or downstream software products to the
> ASF
> build on our ASF software and then may commercialize, etc or sell it but
> that has to be different software since the ASF isn't a company and we
> exist to provide open source software for the public good.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> [1] http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#activemq
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>>
>>> First let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Mattmann and I'm
>>> currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the goings-on
>>> related to the recent change in the web console, where now it appears
>>> the first link on a standard deployment of ActiveMQ and its web console
>>> points to a web console from hawtio.
>>>
>>> I don't really have any skin in the game on which company built what, or
>>> who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a decade and
>>> have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a number of
>>> the ASF's largest projects.
>>>
>>> I *do* however have a problem that the ActiveMQ PMC now is stewarded a
>>> product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with a web
>>> console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least to be
>>> a specific company's product *hawtio web console*.
>>>
>>> With my Director hat on -- this is unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
>>> So let's discuss how this came about, and what can be done to fix it.
>>> I don't have time and haven't read through all the prior history and
>>> threads, but I'm happy to read through links folks have for me to check
>>> out,
>>> and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It can be
>>> addressed
>>> in various ways, so let's talk about it.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James
>> -------
>> Red Hat
>>
>> Email: [hidden email]
>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
>> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Open Source Integration
>
>

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: Default Web Console

Chris Mattmann
Hi Robert,

That would be a fine decision by me, and then if at some point
the Apache ActiveMQ PMC desired to make a console that they wanted
to maintain (or some subset of the PMC/committers wanted to maintain)
and keep up with Apache branding/etc., that could be done later and
when there is time.

Cheers,
Chris



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:25 AM
To: <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Default Web Console

>The old console is really getting to a point of not being maintainable -
>so ideally it should be removed - and as ActiveMQ¹s main focus is to be
>just a message broker it would be easier not to ship one at all (IIRC the
>majority of security issues for the ActiveMQ project have been  console
>related). I¹m all for user experience  but we could just take the
>decision to not ship any console what so ever and just direct folks to a
>list of 3rd party consoles ?
>
>On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:01, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> Thanks for your quick reply!
>>
>>
>> Some comments below:
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: James Strachan <[hidden email]>
>> Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:42 AM
>> To: <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: Default Web Console
>>
>>> Hey Chris
>>>
>>> So hawtio is a ASL licensed community open source project; its not a
>>> company product or commercial tool. There are committers from different
>>> companies on it.
>>> http://hawt.io/
>>
>> Gotcha, OK. That being said, even if hawtio is a community supported
>> project
>> (which that's great, glad to hear it) and that it's ALv2 licensed, as it
>> stands
>> from what I can see that particular product has no Apache ActiveMQ, let
>> alone
>> Apache branding on it at all, whereas the former
>>old-not-really-maintained
>> console
>> has Apache branding all over it. Is the hawtio product customizable?
>>Does
>> it allow skinning?
>> If it does that's one thing; and an incremental step that can be taken
>>by
>> the
>> Apache ActiveMQ PMC to make the products that it ships (which may
>>include
>> dependencies
>> on software that enhance user experience) respect the fact that they are
>> Apache products.
>>
>> Beyond skinning, the Apache ActiveMQ PMC should also consider strong
>> dependencies on external products that aren't supporting products, but
>>in
>> fact
>> major architectural elements to be something that in general is a bad
>> practice.
>> This is mostly because the Apache ActiveMQ PMC can only be responsible
>>for
>> stewarding
>> the software that it produces. Thought hawtio is community led, and
>>though
>> it's ALv2
>> licensed, it's not the ActiveMQ PMC and thus subject to its own
>>committers
>> and PMC
>> members itches that they are scratching, and subject to its own release
>> schedule
>> and ultimately subject to its own merit and stewardship. So, ultimately
>> it's different,
>> and having strong dependencies from Apache products on external elements
>> outside of
>> the stewardship of the PMC is certainly allowed but it just introduces
>> checks and
>> balances both social, and technical (as well as political too from what
>> I've seen)
>> that ultimately in the end create more work. I realize that folks may
>>wear
>> different
>> hats, and may wear multiple hats (for example, are there are hawtio
>> community members
>> who are also Apache ActiveMQ PMC members here? if so, please let me
>>know)
>> - but
>> when you're at the ASF you need to wear you're ASF hat over here. So you
>> just
>> need to consider those things (not "you" specifically I'm using the
>>royal
>> "you"
>> referring to the ActiveMQ PMC members over here in ASF land).
>>
>>>
>>> but if folks are worried about having a console from a different open
>>> source project inside ActiveMQ we can easily rip it out; it was only
>>>added
>>> to try give users a better experience of using ActiveMQ (particularly
>>>as
>>> the old-not-really-maintained console sucks ass & is huge).
>>
>> Sure, I'm not worried about having a different console per se -- in
>>fact,
>> I have no technical merit here in ActiveMQ land, so I don't really have
>>a
>> say -- I'm over here as an ASF director b/c I've seen and heard things
>>that
>> indicate to me that not only is the Apache ActiveMQ PMC taking technical
>> steps that don't respect the Apache brand, but there are also technical
>> connections being made to external software products where some of the
>> corporate influence issues I've seen in the past are coming up.
>>
>> In response to the above about the comment about the existing
>> old-not-really-
>> maintained console "sucking ass", I would ask as an ASF member and
>>ActiveMQ
>> PMC member per [1], wouldn't the goal then to be to make an Apache
>>ActiveMQ
>> branded console that doesn't? If your answer is, step #1 was to
>>introduce
>> hawtio
>> since it's great and blah blah; but step #2-N is to then skin it and
>>make
>> it
>> Apache branded, etc., then that's a start at a roadmap to get in line
>>with
>> what I would expect of an ASF PMC led by people who care about the ASF.
>> Beyond that, I would also ask you as an ASF member and Apache ActiveMQ
>> PMC member -- do you think it's a good idea to have dependencies on
>> something
>> as critical as user experience on software that isn't stewarded by the
>> Apache ActiveMQ PMC and maintained on ASF bits and hardware?
>>
>>
>> hawtio has every right to exist and should I'm not saying it shouldn't,
>> but typically
>> the way that works it that upstream or downstream software products to
>>the
>> ASF
>> build on our ASF software and then may commercialize, etc or sell it but
>> that has to be different software since the ASF isn't a company and we
>> exist to provide open source software for the public good.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> [1] http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#activemq
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Mattmann and I'm
>>>> currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the goings-on
>>>> related to the recent change in the web console, where now it appears
>>>> the first link on a standard deployment of ActiveMQ and its web
>>>>console
>>>> points to a web console from hawtio.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really have any skin in the game on which company built what,
>>>>or
>>>> who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a decade
>>>>and
>>>> have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a number
>>>>of
>>>> the ASF's largest projects.
>>>>
>>>> I *do* however have a problem that the ActiveMQ PMC now is stewarded a
>>>> product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with a web
>>>> console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least to
>>>>be
>>>> a specific company's product *hawtio web console*.
>>>>
>>>> With my Director hat on -- this is unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
>>>> So let's discuss how this came about, and what can be done to fix it.
>>>> I don't have time and haven't read through all the prior history and
>>>> threads, but I'm happy to read through links folks have for me to
>>>>check
>>>> out,
>>>> and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It can be
>>>> addressed
>>>> in various ways, so let's talk about it.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> James
>>> -------
>>> Red Hat
>>>
>>> Email: [hidden email]
>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
>>> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> Open Source Integration
>>
>>
>
>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: Default Web Console

dejanb
I'm also for removing the old web console no matter what people decide
about hawtio. There's a lot of tools out there that can be used to monitor
the broker, which are far better than this old web console. The web console
is pain to maintain in its current state and virtually impossible to
refactor (without complete rewrite) to support new features.

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 Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> That would be a fine decision by me, and then if at some point
> the Apache ActiveMQ PMC desired to make a console that they wanted
> to maintain (or some subset of the PMC/committers wanted to maintain)
> and keep up with Apache branding/etc., that could be done later and
> when there is time.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:25 AM
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Default Web Console
>
> >The old console is really getting to a point of not being maintainable -
> >so ideally it should be removed - and as ActiveMQ¹s main focus is to be
> >just a message broker it would be easier not to ship one at all (IIRC the
> >majority of security issues for the ActiveMQ project have been  console
> >related). I¹m all for user experience  but we could just take the
> >decision to not ship any console what so ever and just direct folks to a
> >list of 3rd party consoles ?
> >
> >On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:01, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi James,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your quick reply!
> >>
> >>
> >> Some comments below:
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: James Strachan <[hidden email]>
> >> Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
> >> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:42 AM
> >> To: <[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: Re: Default Web Console
> >>
> >>> Hey Chris
> >>>
> >>> So hawtio is a ASL licensed community open source project; its not a
> >>> company product or commercial tool. There are committers from different
> >>> companies on it.
> >>> http://hawt.io/
> >>
> >> Gotcha, OK. That being said, even if hawtio is a community supported
> >> project
> >> (which that's great, glad to hear it) and that it's ALv2 licensed, as it
> >> stands
> >> from what I can see that particular product has no Apache ActiveMQ, let
> >> alone
> >> Apache branding on it at all, whereas the former
> >>old-not-really-maintained
> >> console
> >> has Apache branding all over it. Is the hawtio product customizable?
> >>Does
> >> it allow skinning?
> >> If it does that's one thing; and an incremental step that can be taken
> >>by
> >> the
> >> Apache ActiveMQ PMC to make the products that it ships (which may
> >>include
> >> dependencies
> >> on software that enhance user experience) respect the fact that they are
> >> Apache products.
> >>
> >> Beyond skinning, the Apache ActiveMQ PMC should also consider strong
> >> dependencies on external products that aren't supporting products, but
> >>in
> >> fact
> >> major architectural elements to be something that in general is a bad
> >> practice.
> >> This is mostly because the Apache ActiveMQ PMC can only be responsible
> >>for
> >> stewarding
> >> the software that it produces. Thought hawtio is community led, and
> >>though
> >> it's ALv2
> >> licensed, it's not the ActiveMQ PMC and thus subject to its own
> >>committers
> >> and PMC
> >> members itches that they are scratching, and subject to its own release
> >> schedule
> >> and ultimately subject to its own merit and stewardship. So, ultimately
> >> it's different,
> >> and having strong dependencies from Apache products on external elements
> >> outside of
> >> the stewardship of the PMC is certainly allowed but it just introduces
> >> checks and
> >> balances both social, and technical (as well as political too from what
> >> I've seen)
> >> that ultimately in the end create more work. I realize that folks may
> >>wear
> >> different
> >> hats, and may wear multiple hats (for example, are there are hawtio
> >> community members
> >> who are also Apache ActiveMQ PMC members here? if so, please let me
> >>know)
> >> - but
> >> when you're at the ASF you need to wear you're ASF hat over here. So you
> >> just
> >> need to consider those things (not "you" specifically I'm using the
> >>royal
> >> "you"
> >> referring to the ActiveMQ PMC members over here in ASF land).
> >>
> >>>
> >>> but if folks are worried about having a console from a different open
> >>> source project inside ActiveMQ we can easily rip it out; it was only
> >>>added
> >>> to try give users a better experience of using ActiveMQ (particularly
> >>>as
> >>> the old-not-really-maintained console sucks ass & is huge).
> >>
> >> Sure, I'm not worried about having a different console per se -- in
> >>fact,
> >> I have no technical merit here in ActiveMQ land, so I don't really have
> >>a
> >> say -- I'm over here as an ASF director b/c I've seen and heard things
> >>that
> >> indicate to me that not only is the Apache ActiveMQ PMC taking technical
> >> steps that don't respect the Apache brand, but there are also technical
> >> connections being made to external software products where some of the
> >> corporate influence issues I've seen in the past are coming up.
> >>
> >> In response to the above about the comment about the existing
> >> old-not-really-
> >> maintained console "sucking ass", I would ask as an ASF member and
> >>ActiveMQ
> >> PMC member per [1], wouldn't the goal then to be to make an Apache
> >>ActiveMQ
> >> branded console that doesn't? If your answer is, step #1 was to
> >>introduce
> >> hawtio
> >> since it's great and blah blah; but step #2-N is to then skin it and
> >>make
> >> it
> >> Apache branded, etc., then that's a start at a roadmap to get in line
> >>with
> >> what I would expect of an ASF PMC led by people who care about the ASF.
> >> Beyond that, I would also ask you as an ASF member and Apache ActiveMQ
> >> PMC member -- do you think it's a good idea to have dependencies on
> >> something
> >> as critical as user experience on software that isn't stewarded by the
> >> Apache ActiveMQ PMC and maintained on ASF bits and hardware?
> >>
> >>
> >> hawtio has every right to exist and should I'm not saying it shouldn't,
> >> but typically
> >> the way that works it that upstream or downstream software products to
> >>the
> >> ASF
> >> build on our ASF software and then may commercialize, etc or sell it but
> >> that has to be different software since the ASF isn't a company and we
> >> exist to provide open source software for the public good.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#activemq
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Guys,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> First let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Mattmann and I'm
> >>>> currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the goings-on
> >>>> related to the recent change in the web console, where now it appears
> >>>> the first link on a standard deployment of ActiveMQ and its web
> >>>>console
> >>>> points to a web console from hawtio.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't really have any skin in the game on which company built what,
> >>>>or
> >>>> who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a decade
> >>>>and
> >>>> have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a number
> >>>>of
> >>>> the ASF's largest projects.
> >>>>
> >>>> I *do* however have a problem that the ActiveMQ PMC now is stewarded a
> >>>> product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with a web
> >>>> console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least to
> >>>>be
> >>>> a specific company's product *hawtio web console*.
> >>>>
> >>>> With my Director hat on -- this is unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
> >>>> So let's discuss how this came about, and what can be done to fix it.
> >>>> I don't have time and haven't read through all the prior history and
> >>>> threads, but I'm happy to read through links folks have for me to
> >>>>check
> >>>> out,
> >>>> and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It can be
> >>>> addressed
> >>>> in various ways, so let's talk about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Chris
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> James
> >>> -------
> >>> Red Hat
> >>>
> >>> Email: [hidden email]
> >>> Web: http://fusesource.com
> >>> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
> >>> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
> >>>
> >>> Open Source Integration
> >>
> >>
> >
> >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: Default Web Console

rajdavies
Agree - the console functionality has never been an architectural necessity, if it was the original console would have been maintained or re-written long, long ago

On 19 Dec 2013, at 19:13, Dejan Bosanac <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm also for removing the old web console no matter what people decide
> about hawtio. There's a lot of tools out there that can be used to monitor
> the broker, which are far better than this old web console. The web console
> is pain to maintain in its current state and virtually impossible to
> refactor (without complete rewrite) to support new features.
>
> 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 Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> That would be a fine decision by me, and then if at some point
>> the Apache ActiveMQ PMC desired to make a console that they wanted
>> to maintain (or some subset of the PMC/committers wanted to maintain)
>> and keep up with Apache branding/etc., that could be done later and
>> when there is time.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
>> Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:25 AM
>> To: <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: Default Web Console
>>
>>> The old console is really getting to a point of not being maintainable -
>>> so ideally it should be removed - and as ActiveMQ¹s main focus is to be
>>> just a message broker it would be easier not to ship one at all (IIRC the
>>> majority of security issues for the ActiveMQ project have been  console
>>> related). I¹m all for user experience  but we could just take the
>>> decision to not ship any console what so ever and just direct folks to a
>>> list of 3rd party consoles ?
>>>
>>> On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:01, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi James,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your quick reply!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some comments below:
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: James Strachan <[hidden email]>
>>>> Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>>>> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:42 AM
>>>> To: <[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: Re: Default Web Console
>>>>
>>>>> Hey Chris
>>>>>
>>>>> So hawtio is a ASL licensed community open source project; its not a
>>>>> company product or commercial tool. There are committers from different
>>>>> companies on it.
>>>>> http://hawt.io/
>>>>
>>>> Gotcha, OK. That being said, even if hawtio is a community supported
>>>> project
>>>> (which that's great, glad to hear it) and that it's ALv2 licensed, as it
>>>> stands
>>>> from what I can see that particular product has no Apache ActiveMQ, let
>>>> alone
>>>> Apache branding on it at all, whereas the former
>>>> old-not-really-maintained
>>>> console
>>>> has Apache branding all over it. Is the hawtio product customizable?
>>>> Does
>>>> it allow skinning?
>>>> If it does that's one thing; and an incremental step that can be taken
>>>> by
>>>> the
>>>> Apache ActiveMQ PMC to make the products that it ships (which may
>>>> include
>>>> dependencies
>>>> on software that enhance user experience) respect the fact that they are
>>>> Apache products.
>>>>
>>>> Beyond skinning, the Apache ActiveMQ PMC should also consider strong
>>>> dependencies on external products that aren't supporting products, but
>>>> in
>>>> fact
>>>> major architectural elements to be something that in general is a bad
>>>> practice.
>>>> This is mostly because the Apache ActiveMQ PMC can only be responsible
>>>> for
>>>> stewarding
>>>> the software that it produces. Thought hawtio is community led, and
>>>> though
>>>> it's ALv2
>>>> licensed, it's not the ActiveMQ PMC and thus subject to its own
>>>> committers
>>>> and PMC
>>>> members itches that they are scratching, and subject to its own release
>>>> schedule
>>>> and ultimately subject to its own merit and stewardship. So, ultimately
>>>> it's different,
>>>> and having strong dependencies from Apache products on external elements
>>>> outside of
>>>> the stewardship of the PMC is certainly allowed but it just introduces
>>>> checks and
>>>> balances both social, and technical (as well as political too from what
>>>> I've seen)
>>>> that ultimately in the end create more work. I realize that folks may
>>>> wear
>>>> different
>>>> hats, and may wear multiple hats (for example, are there are hawtio
>>>> community members
>>>> who are also Apache ActiveMQ PMC members here? if so, please let me
>>>> know)
>>>> - but
>>>> when you're at the ASF you need to wear you're ASF hat over here. So you
>>>> just
>>>> need to consider those things (not "you" specifically I'm using the
>>>> royal
>>>> "you"
>>>> referring to the ActiveMQ PMC members over here in ASF land).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> but if folks are worried about having a console from a different open
>>>>> source project inside ActiveMQ we can easily rip it out; it was only
>>>>> added
>>>>> to try give users a better experience of using ActiveMQ (particularly
>>>>> as
>>>>> the old-not-really-maintained console sucks ass & is huge).
>>>>
>>>> Sure, I'm not worried about having a different console per se -- in
>>>> fact,
>>>> I have no technical merit here in ActiveMQ land, so I don't really have
>>>> a
>>>> say -- I'm over here as an ASF director b/c I've seen and heard things
>>>> that
>>>> indicate to me that not only is the Apache ActiveMQ PMC taking technical
>>>> steps that don't respect the Apache brand, but there are also technical
>>>> connections being made to external software products where some of the
>>>> corporate influence issues I've seen in the past are coming up.
>>>>
>>>> In response to the above about the comment about the existing
>>>> old-not-really-
>>>> maintained console "sucking ass", I would ask as an ASF member and
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> PMC member per [1], wouldn't the goal then to be to make an Apache
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> branded console that doesn't? If your answer is, step #1 was to
>>>> introduce
>>>> hawtio
>>>> since it's great and blah blah; but step #2-N is to then skin it and
>>>> make
>>>> it
>>>> Apache branded, etc., then that's a start at a roadmap to get in line
>>>> with
>>>> what I would expect of an ASF PMC led by people who care about the ASF.
>>>> Beyond that, I would also ask you as an ASF member and Apache ActiveMQ
>>>> PMC member -- do you think it's a good idea to have dependencies on
>>>> something
>>>> as critical as user experience on software that isn't stewarded by the
>>>> Apache ActiveMQ PMC and maintained on ASF bits and hardware?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hawtio has every right to exist and should I'm not saying it shouldn't,
>>>> but typically
>>>> the way that works it that upstream or downstream software products to
>>>> the
>>>> ASF
>>>> build on our ASF software and then may commercialize, etc or sell it but
>>>> that has to be different software since the ASF isn't a company and we
>>>> exist to provide open source software for the public good.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#activemq
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Mattmann and I'm
>>>>>> currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the goings-on
>>>>>> related to the recent change in the web console, where now it appears
>>>>>> the first link on a standard deployment of ActiveMQ and its web
>>>>>> console
>>>>>> points to a web console from hawtio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't really have any skin in the game on which company built what,
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a decade
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a number
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the ASF's largest projects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I *do* however have a problem that the ActiveMQ PMC now is stewarded a
>>>>>> product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with a web
>>>>>> console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> a specific company's product *hawtio web console*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With my Director hat on -- this is unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
>>>>>> So let's discuss how this came about, and what can be done to fix it.
>>>>>> I don't have time and haven't read through all the prior history and
>>>>>> threads, but I'm happy to read through links folks have for me to
>>>>>> check
>>>>>> out,
>>>>>> and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It can be
>>>>>> addressed
>>>>>> in various ways, so let's talk about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> James
>>>>> -------
>>>>> Red Hat
>>>>>
>>>>> Email: [hidden email]
>>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>>>> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
>>>>> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> Open Source Integration
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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: Default Web Console

dkulp
In reply to this post by James Strachan-2

On Dec 19, 2013, at 12:42 PM, James Strachan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> but if folks are worried about having a console from a different open
> source project inside ActiveMQ we can easily rip it out; it was only added
> to try give users a better experience of using ActiveMQ (particularly as
> the old-not-really-maintained console sucks ass & is huge).

Ripping it out is certainly one option.  Probably not the one I would advocate, but I’m not on the PMC here (not even a committer) nor on hawt.io and really don’t have a say.

Personally, I’d like to see a hawt.io (or other) based console here that would make ActiveMQ a bit more approachable.   ActiveMQ is fairly complex and not having at least some basic console or something that the users can use to see what is going on could  potentially make the “support” burden here even higher.   However, as Chris stated, if there is going to be something here, it would have to meet Apache’s requirements.   Dropping hawt.io directly in obviously does not.    I don’t know enough (well, anything) about hawt.io’s architecture or internals or anything to know how easy/hard it would be to have a console here built on top of hawt.io, but fully branded and and controlled and such per Apache and with the ActiveMQ “plugin” or whatever provide here.   There are a lot of very smart people that are part of hawt.io’s development so I assume there is some level of plug ability and such there, but I could be completely wrong.   (on a side note, having something outside of hawt.io that could showcase HOW to add a “plugin” to hawt.io would be very useful as an example to other projects that would like to use hawt.io or add functionality to hawt.io.  I’m actually thinking CXF as CXF has a bunch of things like security caches and thread pools and such that would be cool to provide better admin capabilities.)


As I said, I’d strongly prefer (for admittedly selfish reasons) having at least some basic console provided here.   Many users use the web console (evidenced by questions about it just today on the karaf list) and I know many of our (Talend’s) customers use it.  Maybe if we could create some JIRA’s of some of the deficiencies in the existing console, that could be something people could jump in and help out with.   Right now, I just see 3 open issues for the console (one logged today):

https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20component%20%3D%20webconsole%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open

Could we possibly get some basic ideas logged there?   Are there bits of information that are missing that would be relatively easy to add?


Dan






> On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>>
>> First let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Mattmann and I'm
>> currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the goings-on
>> related to the recent change in the web console, where now it appears
>> the first link on a standard deployment of ActiveMQ and its web console
>> points to a web console from hawtio.
>>
>> I don't really have any skin in the game on which company built what, or
>> who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a decade and
>> have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a number of
>> the ASF's largest projects.
>>
>> I *do* however have a problem that the ActiveMQ PMC now is stewarded a
>> product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with a web
>> console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least to be
>> a specific company's product *hawtio web console*.
>>
>> With my Director hat on -- this is unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
>> So let's discuss how this came about, and what can be done to fix it.
>> I don't have time and haven't read through all the prior history and
>> threads, but I'm happy to read through links folks have for me to check
>> out,
>> and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It can be
>> addressed
>> in various ways, so let's talk about it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> James
> -------
> Red Hat
>
> Email: [hidden email]
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>
> Open Source Integration

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Default Web Console

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by rajdavies
While I agree that the console was never an architectural necessity, the
reality is that it's very much in use today by pretty much every
ActiveMQ user I know.

This thread was meant for a different purpose, I don't think it should
be hijacked by a different discussion. If somebody feels strongly about
removing the original console, I think that conversation should take
place in a separate [discuss] thread, a deprecation time should be
provided and an alternative (if any) presented.

My $0.02,
Hadrian


On 12/19/2013 02:52 PM, Robert Davies wrote:

> Agree - the console functionality has never been an architectural necessity, if it was the original console would have been maintained or re-written long, long ago
>
> On 19 Dec 2013, at 19:13, Dejan Bosanac <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I'm also for removing the old web console no matter what people decide
>> about hawtio. There's a lot of tools out there that can be used to monitor
>> the broker, which are far better than this old web console. The web console
>> is pain to maintain in its current state and virtually impossible to
>> refactor (without complete rewrite) to support new features.
>>
>> 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 Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> That would be a fine decision by me, and then if at some point
>>> the Apache ActiveMQ PMC desired to make a console that they wanted
>>> to maintain (or some subset of the PMC/committers wanted to maintain)
>>> and keep up with Apache branding/etc., that could be done later and
>>> when there is time.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Robert Davies <[hidden email]>
>>> Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>>> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:25 AM
>>> To: <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: Default Web Console
>>>
>>>> The old console is really getting to a point of not being maintainable -
>>>> so ideally it should be removed - and as ActiveMQ¹s main focus is to be
>>>> just a message broker it would be easier not to ship one at all (IIRC the
>>>> majority of security issues for the ActiveMQ project have been  console
>>>> related). I¹m all for user experience  but we could just take the
>>>> decision to not ship any console what so ever and just direct folks to a
>>>> list of 3rd party consoles ?
>>>>
>>>> On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:01, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi James,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your quick reply!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some comments below:
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: James Strachan <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:42 AM
>>>>> To: <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Default Web Console
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So hawtio is a ASL licensed community open source project; its not a
>>>>>> company product or commercial tool. There are committers from different
>>>>>> companies on it.
>>>>>> http://hawt.io/
>>>>>
>>>>> Gotcha, OK. That being said, even if hawtio is a community supported
>>>>> project
>>>>> (which that's great, glad to hear it) and that it's ALv2 licensed, as it
>>>>> stands
>>>>> from what I can see that particular product has no Apache ActiveMQ, let
>>>>> alone
>>>>> Apache branding on it at all, whereas the former
>>>>> old-not-really-maintained
>>>>> console
>>>>> has Apache branding all over it. Is the hawtio product customizable?
>>>>> Does
>>>>> it allow skinning?
>>>>> If it does that's one thing; and an incremental step that can be taken
>>>>> by
>>>>> the
>>>>> Apache ActiveMQ PMC to make the products that it ships (which may
>>>>> include
>>>>> dependencies
>>>>> on software that enhance user experience) respect the fact that they are
>>>>> Apache products.
>>>>>
>>>>> Beyond skinning, the Apache ActiveMQ PMC should also consider strong
>>>>> dependencies on external products that aren't supporting products, but
>>>>> in
>>>>> fact
>>>>> major architectural elements to be something that in general is a bad
>>>>> practice.
>>>>> This is mostly because the Apache ActiveMQ PMC can only be responsible
>>>>> for
>>>>> stewarding
>>>>> the software that it produces. Thought hawtio is community led, and
>>>>> though
>>>>> it's ALv2
>>>>> licensed, it's not the ActiveMQ PMC and thus subject to its own
>>>>> committers
>>>>> and PMC
>>>>> members itches that they are scratching, and subject to its own release
>>>>> schedule
>>>>> and ultimately subject to its own merit and stewardship. So, ultimately
>>>>> it's different,
>>>>> and having strong dependencies from Apache products on external elements
>>>>> outside of
>>>>> the stewardship of the PMC is certainly allowed but it just introduces
>>>>> checks and
>>>>> balances both social, and technical (as well as political too from what
>>>>> I've seen)
>>>>> that ultimately in the end create more work. I realize that folks may
>>>>> wear
>>>>> different
>>>>> hats, and may wear multiple hats (for example, are there are hawtio
>>>>> community members
>>>>> who are also Apache ActiveMQ PMC members here? if so, please let me
>>>>> know)
>>>>> - but
>>>>> when you're at the ASF you need to wear you're ASF hat over here. So you
>>>>> just
>>>>> need to consider those things (not "you" specifically I'm using the
>>>>> royal
>>>>> "you"
>>>>> referring to the ActiveMQ PMC members over here in ASF land).
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but if folks are worried about having a console from a different open
>>>>>> source project inside ActiveMQ we can easily rip it out; it was only
>>>>>> added
>>>>>> to try give users a better experience of using ActiveMQ (particularly
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> the old-not-really-maintained console sucks ass & is huge).
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, I'm not worried about having a different console per se -- in
>>>>> fact,
>>>>> I have no technical merit here in ActiveMQ land, so I don't really have
>>>>> a
>>>>> say -- I'm over here as an ASF director b/c I've seen and heard things
>>>>> that
>>>>> indicate to me that not only is the Apache ActiveMQ PMC taking technical
>>>>> steps that don't respect the Apache brand, but there are also technical
>>>>> connections being made to external software products where some of the
>>>>> corporate influence issues I've seen in the past are coming up.
>>>>>
>>>>> In response to the above about the comment about the existing
>>>>> old-not-really-
>>>>> maintained console "sucking ass", I would ask as an ASF member and
>>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>>> PMC member per [1], wouldn't the goal then to be to make an Apache
>>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>>> branded console that doesn't? If your answer is, step #1 was to
>>>>> introduce
>>>>> hawtio
>>>>> since it's great and blah blah; but step #2-N is to then skin it and
>>>>> make
>>>>> it
>>>>> Apache branded, etc., then that's a start at a roadmap to get in line
>>>>> with
>>>>> what I would expect of an ASF PMC led by people who care about the ASF.
>>>>> Beyond that, I would also ask you as an ASF member and Apache ActiveMQ
>>>>> PMC member -- do you think it's a good idea to have dependencies on
>>>>> something
>>>>> as critical as user experience on software that isn't stewarded by the
>>>>> Apache ActiveMQ PMC and maintained on ASF bits and hardware?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hawtio has every right to exist and should I'm not saying it shouldn't,
>>>>> but typically
>>>>> the way that works it that upstream or downstream software products to
>>>>> the
>>>>> ASF
>>>>> build on our ASF software and then may commercialize, etc or sell it but
>>>>> that has to be different software since the ASF isn't a company and we
>>>>> exist to provide open source software for the public good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#activemq
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Mattmann and I'm
>>>>>>> currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the goings-on
>>>>>>> related to the recent change in the web console, where now it appears
>>>>>>> the first link on a standard deployment of ActiveMQ and its web
>>>>>>> console
>>>>>>> points to a web console from hawtio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't really have any skin in the game on which company built what,
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a decade
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a number
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the ASF's largest projects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I *do* however have a problem that the ActiveMQ PMC now is stewarded a
>>>>>>> product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with a web
>>>>>>> console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> a specific company's product *hawtio web console*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With my Director hat on -- this is unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
>>>>>>> So let's discuss how this came about, and what can be done to fix it.
>>>>>>> I don't have time and haven't read through all the prior history and
>>>>>>> threads, but I'm happy to read through links folks have for me to
>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>> out,
>>>>>>> and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It can be
>>>>>>> addressed
>>>>>>> in various ways, so let's talk about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> James
>>>>>> -------
>>>>>> Red Hat
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Email: [hidden email]
>>>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>>>>> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
>>>>>> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Open Source Integration
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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: Default Web Console

rajdavies
In reply to this post by dkulp
Hi Dan,

It is possible to brand hawtio [1] - Red Hat used a branded version for JBoss A-MQ. Though I doubt we could ever meet the full requirements  for branding and control that was outlined on the Camel dev list [2] - hence its probably easier to just remove it. I’m sure the hawtio folks (I’m not a committer on that project) could help guide you in how to add a better support for CXF - their goal is to get hawtio used by as many people as possible.


[1] https://github.com/hawtio/hawtio/issues/666
[2] http://www.opendevs.org/kpqms/git-commit-camel-7023-added-hawtio-goal-to-camel-maven-plugin.html

Rob

On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:42, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Dec 19, 2013, at 12:42 PM, James Strachan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> but if folks are worried about having a console from a different open
>> source project inside ActiveMQ we can easily rip it out; it was only added
>> to try give users a better experience of using ActiveMQ (particularly as
>> the old-not-really-maintained console sucks ass & is huge).
>
> Ripping it out is certainly one option.  Probably not the one I would advocate, but I’m not on the PMC here (not even a committer) nor on hawt.io and really don’t have a say.
>
> Personally, I’d like to see a hawt.io (or other) based console here that would make ActiveMQ a bit more approachable.   ActiveMQ is fairly complex and not having at least some basic console or something that the users can use to see what is going on could  potentially make the “support” burden here even higher.   However, as Chris stated, if there is going to be something here, it would have to meet Apache’s requirements.   Dropping hawt.io directly in obviously does not.    I don’t know enough (well, anything) about hawt.io’s architecture or internals or anything to know how easy/hard it would be to have a console here built on top of hawt.io, but fully branded and and controlled and such per Apache and with the ActiveMQ “plugin” or whatever provide here.   There are a lot of very smart people that are part of hawt.io’s development so I assume there is some level of plug ability and such there, but I could be completely wrong.   (on a side note, having something outside of hawt.io that could showcase HOW to add a “plugin” to hawt.io would be very useful as an example to other projects that would like to use hawt.io or add functionality to hawt.io.  I’m actually thinking CXF as CXF has a bunch of things like security caches and thread pools and such that would be cool to provide better admin capabilities.)
>
>
> As I said, I’d strongly prefer (for admittedly selfish reasons) having at least some basic console provided here.   Many users use the web console (evidenced by questions about it just today on the karaf list) and I know many of our (Talend’s) customers use it.  Maybe if we could create some JIRA’s of some of the deficiencies in the existing console, that could be something people could jump in and help out with.   Right now, I just see 3 open issues for the console (one logged today):
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20component%20%3D%20webconsole%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open
>
> Could we possibly get some basic ideas logged there?   Are there bits of information that are missing that would be relatively easy to add?
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>>
>>> First let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Mattmann and I'm
>>> currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the goings-on
>>> related to the recent change in the web console, where now it appears
>>> the first link on a standard deployment of ActiveMQ and its web console
>>> points to a web console from hawtio.
>>>
>>> I don't really have any skin in the game on which company built what, or
>>> who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a decade and
>>> have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a number of
>>> the ASF's largest projects.
>>>
>>> I *do* however have a problem that the ActiveMQ PMC now is stewarded a
>>> product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with a web
>>> console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least to be
>>> a specific company's product *hawtio web console*.
>>>
>>> With my Director hat on -- this is unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
>>> So let's discuss how this came about, and what can be done to fix it.
>>> I don't have time and haven't read through all the prior history and
>>> threads, but I'm happy to read through links folks have for me to check
>>> out,
>>> and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It can be
>>> addressed
>>> in various ways, so let's talk about it.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James
>> -------
>> Red Hat
>>
>> Email: [hidden email]
>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
>> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Open Source Integration
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Default Web Console

rajdavies
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea

Hi Hadrian,

On 23 Dec 2013, at 03:14, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> While I agree that the console was never an architectural necessity, the reality is that it's very much in use today by pretty much every ActiveMQ user I know.

I don’t disagree with that, all management operations with the broker are exposed through JMX, and until the ActiveMQ 5.8 release it was pretty hard to navigate the ActiveMQ JMX tree from any vanilla JMX console (e.g. JConsole) - the name hierarchy was ‘bespoke' and it was hard to know what you were looking for - and the original ActiveMQ web console provided a convent facade on presenting that information  to users. That issue was fixed about a year ago[1]. The problem is that the original Web console provides a static view on what’s really going on - there’s a lot of information that’s been added to JMX over the years and the original web console hasn’t been maintained to keep up with it - mainly because its so painful to do so, and changes have sometimes resulted in a new security issues[2].  Apart from an initial sniff test to see if its running - users tend to move to something else pretty quickly to monitor a running ActiveMQ broker - like JConsole, Jolkia, Hyperic, hawtio etc.

>
> This thread was meant for a different purpose, I don't think it should be hijacked by a different discussion. If somebody feels strongly about removing the original console, I think that conversation should take place in a separate [discuss] thread, a deprecation time should be provided and an alternative (if any) presented.

It wasn’t my intention to hijack the discussion for a different purpose - its just that the removal of the original Console and the use of hawtio are linked [3] - currently both options are available to a user, but the intention was to provide a least something to replace the original console over time - currently that was hawtio - I’m not aware of anything better that has an ASF compatible licence.

Rob.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4237
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4594


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Default Web Console

dejanb
I just want to add timing of events here for the record. Web console is
deprecated starting with the 5.9.0 release and the plan was to remove it in
5.10.0. We invested a lot of time to provide the same functionality with
hawtio activemq plugin, providing it as a "tech preview" in 5.9 and a full
replacement in 5.10. This was discussed in various Jiras and threads
preparing 5.9.0 release and no one objected back then. So this is not just
a random decision to remove a console on a whim, but something we planed to
do for a while.

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 Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi Hadrian,
>
> On 23 Dec 2013, at 03:14, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > While I agree that the console was never an architectural necessity, the
> reality is that it's very much in use today by pretty much every ActiveMQ
> user I know.
>
> I don’t disagree with that, all management operations with the broker are
> exposed through JMX, and until the ActiveMQ 5.8 release it was pretty hard
> to navigate the ActiveMQ JMX tree from any vanilla JMX console (e.g.
> JConsole) - the name hierarchy was ‘bespoke' and it was hard to know what
> you were looking for - and the original ActiveMQ web console provided a
> convent facade on presenting that information  to users. That issue was
> fixed about a year ago[1]. The problem is that the original Web console
> provides a static view on what’s really going on - there’s a lot of
> information that’s been added to JMX over the years and the original web
> console hasn’t been maintained to keep up with it - mainly because its so
> painful to do so, and changes have sometimes resulted in a new security
> issues[2].  Apart from an initial sniff test to see if its running - users
> tend to move to something else pretty quickly to monitor a running ActiveMQ
> broker - like JConsole, Jolkia, Hyperic, hawtio etc.
>
> >
> > This thread was meant for a different purpose, I don't think it should
> be hijacked by a different discussion. If somebody feels strongly about
> removing the original console, I think that conversation should take place
> in a separate [discuss] thread, a deprecation time should be provided and
> an alternative (if any) presented.
>
> It wasn’t my intention to hijack the discussion for a different purpose -
> its just that the removal of the original Console and the use of hawtio are
> linked [3] - currently both options are available to a user, but the
> intention was to provide a least something to replace the original console
> over time - currently that was hawtio - I’m not aware of anything better
> that has an ASF compatible licence.
>
> Rob.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4237
> [2]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4594
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Default Web Console

Hadrian Zbarcea
Well... That was stated on personal blogs and in other settings by some
ActiveMQ PMC members, but was not communicated to the community
officially [1]. For that reason, I cannot agree with your statement. I
know that that was the intention though.

Can we *please* continue this in a separate thread?

Hadrian

[1] http://activemq.apache.org/web-console.html


On 12/23/2013 05:47 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote:

> I just want to add timing of events here for the record. Web console is
> deprecated starting with the 5.9.0 release and the plan was to remove it in
> 5.10.0. We invested a lot of time to provide the same functionality with
> hawtio activemq plugin, providing it as a "tech preview" in 5.9 and a full
> replacement in 5.10. This was discussed in various Jiras and threads
> preparing 5.9.0 release and no one objected back then. So this is not just
> a random decision to remove a console on a whim, but something we planed to
> do for a while.
>
> 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 Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Hadrian,
>>
>> On 23 Dec 2013, at 03:14, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> While I agree that the console was never an architectural necessity, the
>> reality is that it's very much in use today by pretty much every ActiveMQ
>> user I know.
>>
>> I don’t disagree with that, all management operations with the broker are
>> exposed through JMX, and until the ActiveMQ 5.8 release it was pretty hard
>> to navigate the ActiveMQ JMX tree from any vanilla JMX console (e.g.
>> JConsole) - the name hierarchy was ‘bespoke' and it was hard to know what
>> you were looking for - and the original ActiveMQ web console provided a
>> convent facade on presenting that information  to users. That issue was
>> fixed about a year ago[1]. The problem is that the original Web console
>> provides a static view on what’s really going on - there’s a lot of
>> information that’s been added to JMX over the years and the original web
>> console hasn’t been maintained to keep up with it - mainly because its so
>> painful to do so, and changes have sometimes resulted in a new security
>> issues[2].  Apart from an initial sniff test to see if its running - users
>> tend to move to something else pretty quickly to monitor a running ActiveMQ
>> broker - like JConsole, Jolkia, Hyperic, hawtio etc.
>>
>>>
>>> This thread was meant for a different purpose, I don't think it should
>> be hijacked by a different discussion. If somebody feels strongly about
>> removing the original console, I think that conversation should take place
>> in a separate [discuss] thread, a deprecation time should be provided and
>> an alternative (if any) presented.
>>
>> It wasn’t my intention to hijack the discussion for a different purpose -
>> its just that the removal of the original Console and the use of hawtio are
>> linked [3] - currently both options are available to a user, but the
>> intention was to provide a least something to replace the original console
>> over time - currently that was hawtio - I’m not aware of anything better
>> that has an ASF compatible licence.
>>
>> Rob.
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4237
>> [2]
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4594
>>
>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Default Web Console

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by rajdavies


On 12/23/2013 05:32 AM, Robert Davies wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> It is possible to brand hawtio [1] - Red Hat used a branded version for JBoss A-MQ.
Excellent

> Though I doubt we could ever meet the full requirements  for branding and control that
> was outlined on the Camel dev list [2] - hence its probably easier to just remove it.
I think you're right.

> I’m sure the hawtio folks (I’m not a committer on that project) could help guide you
> in how to add a better support for CXF - their goal is to get hawtio used by as many people as possible.
Understood.

Hawt.io imho looks like a more elegant console than the original
ActiveMQ one. It's scope is also much broader. However, to be included
in the ActiveMQ distro we need to follow the ASF guidelines, licensing
being only one of the criteria. It is perfectly fine to have 3rd party
tools and extensions (open source or commercial) serving the ActiveMQ
community.

Cheers,
Hadrian

>
>
> [1] https://github.com/hawtio/hawtio/issues/666
> [2] http://www.opendevs.org/kpqms/git-commit-camel-7023-added-hawtio-goal-to-camel-maven-plugin.html
>
> Rob
>
> On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:42, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2013, at 12:42 PM, James Strachan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> but if folks are worried about having a console from a different open
>>> source project inside ActiveMQ we can easily rip it out; it was only added
>>> to try give users a better experience of using ActiveMQ (particularly as
>>> the old-not-really-maintained console sucks ass & is huge).
>>
>> Ripping it out is certainly one option.  Probably not the one I would advocate, but I’m not on the PMC here (not even a committer) nor on hawt.io and really don’t have a say.
>>
>> Personally, I’d like to see a hawt.io (or other) based console here that would make ActiveMQ a bit more approachable.   ActiveMQ is fairly complex and not having at least some basic console or something that the users can use to see what is going on could  potentially make the “support” burden here even higher.   However, as Chris stated, if there is going to be something here, it would have to meet Apache’s requirements.   Dropping hawt.io directly in obviously does not.    I don’t know enough (well, anything) about hawt.io’s architecture or internals or anything to know how easy/hard it would be to have a console here built on top of hawt.io, but fully branded and and controlled and such per Apache and with the ActiveMQ “plugin” or whatever provide here.   There are a lot of very smart people that are part of hawt.io’s development so I assume there is some level of plug ability and such there, but I could be completely wrong.   (on a side note, having something outside of hawt.i
 o
 that could showcase HOW to add a “plugin” to hawt.io would be very useful as an example to other projects that would like to use hawt.io or add functionality to hawt.io.  I’m actually thinking CXF as CXF has a bunch of things like security caches and thread pools and such that would be cool to provide better admin capabilities.)

>>
>>
>> As I said, I’d strongly prefer (for admittedly selfish reasons) having at least some basic console provided here.   Many users use the web console (evidenced by questions about it just today on the karaf list) and I know many of our (Talend’s) customers use it.  Maybe if we could create some JIRA’s of some of the deficiencies in the existing console, that could be something people could jump in and help out with.   Right now, I just see 3 open issues for the console (one logged today):
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20component%20%3D%20webconsole%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open
>>
>> Could we possibly get some basic ideas logged there?   Are there bits of information that are missing that would be relatively easy to add?
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Mattmann and I'm
>>>> currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the goings-on
>>>> related to the recent change in the web console, where now it appears
>>>> the first link on a standard deployment of ActiveMQ and its web console
>>>> points to a web console from hawtio.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really have any skin in the game on which company built what, or
>>>> who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a decade and
>>>> have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a number of
>>>> the ASF's largest projects.
>>>>
>>>> I *do* however have a problem that the ActiveMQ PMC now is stewarded a
>>>> product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with a web
>>>> console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least to be
>>>> a specific company's product *hawtio web console*.
>>>>
>>>> With my Director hat on -- this is unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
>>>> So let's discuss how this came about, and what can be done to fix it.
>>>> I don't have time and haven't read through all the prior history and
>>>> threads, but I'm happy to read through links folks have for me to check
>>>> out,
>>>> and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It can be
>>>> addressed
>>>> in various ways, so let's talk about it.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> James
>>> -------
>>> Red Hat
>>>
>>> Email: [hidden email]
>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
>>> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> Open Source Integration
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Default Web Console

rajdavies
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
I’ll kick off a separate thread after the next couple of days

On 23 Dec 2013, at 15:06, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well... That was stated on personal blogs and in other settings by some ActiveMQ PMC members, but was not communicated to the community officially [1]. For that reason, I cannot agree with your statement. I know that that was the intention though.
>
> Can we *please* continue this in a separate thread?
>
> Hadrian
>
> [1] http://activemq.apache.org/web-console.html
>
>
> On 12/23/2013 05:47 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote:
>> I just want to add timing of events here for the record. Web console is
>> deprecated starting with the 5.9.0 release and the plan was to remove it in
>> 5.10.0. We invested a lot of time to provide the same functionality with
>> hawtio activemq plugin, providing it as a "tech preview" in 5.9 and a full
>> replacement in 5.10. This was discussed in various Jiras and threads
>> preparing 5.9.0 release and no one objected back then. So this is not just
>> a random decision to remove a console on a whim, but something we planed to
>> do for a while.
>>
>> 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 Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Robert Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Hadrian,
>>>
>>> On 23 Dec 2013, at 03:14, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While I agree that the console was never an architectural necessity, the
>>> reality is that it's very much in use today by pretty much every ActiveMQ
>>> user I know.
>>>
>>> I don’t disagree with that, all management operations with the broker are
>>> exposed through JMX, and until the ActiveMQ 5.8 release it was pretty hard
>>> to navigate the ActiveMQ JMX tree from any vanilla JMX console (e.g.
>>> JConsole) - the name hierarchy was ‘bespoke' and it was hard to know what
>>> you were looking for - and the original ActiveMQ web console provided a
>>> convent facade on presenting that information  to users. That issue was
>>> fixed about a year ago[1]. The problem is that the original Web console
>>> provides a static view on what’s really going on - there’s a lot of
>>> information that’s been added to JMX over the years and the original web
>>> console hasn’t been maintained to keep up with it - mainly because its so
>>> painful to do so, and changes have sometimes resulted in a new security
>>> issues[2].  Apart from an initial sniff test to see if its running - users
>>> tend to move to something else pretty quickly to monitor a running ActiveMQ
>>> broker - like JConsole, Jolkia, Hyperic, hawtio etc.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This thread was meant for a different purpose, I don't think it should
>>> be hijacked by a different discussion. If somebody feels strongly about
>>> removing the original console, I think that conversation should take place
>>> in a separate [discuss] thread, a deprecation time should be provided and
>>> an alternative (if any) presented.
>>>
>>> It wasn’t my intention to hijack the discussion for a different purpose -
>>> its just that the removal of the original Console and the use of hawtio are
>>> linked [3] - currently both options are available to a user, but the
>>> intention was to provide a least something to replace the original console
>>> over time - currently that was hawtio - I’m not aware of anything better
>>> that has an ASF compatible licence.
>>>
>>> Rob.
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4237
>>> [2]
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22
>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4594
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

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