Webconsole deprecation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Webconsole deprecation

christopher.l.shannon
I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation or
removal conversation.

I realize this conversation has been had multiple times in the past
already.  However, since those conversations have taken place there
has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole for
several years.  There continues to be reported bugs against the web
console in jira and they are ignored.  People also submit PRs to
improve the webconsole and they are ignored.

In the past there has been a lot of pushback against outright removal
of the webconsole because there are people who find it useful.  I
think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be to go the
LevelDB route.

Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that it is not
maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable it by default)
but still include it so users have the option to turn it on if they
want?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

artnaseef
The ActiveMQ WebConsole fills a very important role in the solution.

So here are the questions coming to mind when reading the request for
deprecation:

   1. What changed since last opening this question?
   2. What problems are being solved by removing it?
   3. How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be
   provided to end-users?

Here are some of the important functions:

   - Quick view of broker status after initial installation of broker,
   helpful for new installations and for those learning to use the broker for
   the first time.
      - Greatly reduces time to get started using the broker effectively
   - Zero configuration, out-of-the-box Management Console
   - Access to critical broker details, including:
      - memory and store usage
      - listing of queues and topics
      - viewing connections to the broker
      - viewing NOB connections
   - Handy test utilities
      - Browse queue contents
      - Send messages
   - Easy to instruct users on it's use to obtain important details when
   providing remote support

It would be great to have a meaningful discussion that moves us forward.
Right now, this feels to me like a simple re-hash of the old discussion.

Art


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Christopher Shannon <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation or
> removal conversation.
>
> I realize this conversation has been had multiple times in the past
> already.  However, since those conversations have taken place there
> has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole for
> several years.  There continues to be reported bugs against the web
> console in jira and they are ignored.  People also submit PRs to
> improve the webconsole and they are ignored.
>
> In the past there has been a lot of pushback against outright removal
> of the webconsole because there are people who find it useful.  I
> think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be to go the
> LevelDB route.
>
> Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that it is not
> maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable it by default)
> but still include it so users have the option to turn it on if they
> want?
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

jbertram
> What changed since last opening this question?

My understanding (based on Chris' email) is that nothing has changed since
the last discussion, and that is precisely the problem.

> What problems are being solved by removing it?

I believe Chris is proposing that it be deprecated and disabled by default
rather than removed. The problem solved by this is ostensibly that users
would understand it is no longer maintained (i.e. de facto truth) and that
there are risks associated with enabling it.

> How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be provided
to end-users?

Wouldn't users who want the functions provided by the web console could
still have them by enabling it (assuming they're willing to take the
associated risks)?


Justin

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The ActiveMQ WebConsole fills a very important role in the solution.
>
> So here are the questions coming to mind when reading the request for
> deprecation:
>
>    1. What changed since last opening this question?
>    2. What problems are being solved by removing it?
>    3. How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be
>    provided to end-users?
>
> Here are some of the important functions:
>
>    - Quick view of broker status after initial installation of broker,
>    helpful for new installations and for those learning to use the broker
> for
>    the first time.
>       - Greatly reduces time to get started using the broker effectively
>    - Zero configuration, out-of-the-box Management Console
>    - Access to critical broker details, including:
>       - memory and store usage
>       - listing of queues and topics
>       - viewing connections to the broker
>       - viewing NOB connections
>    - Handy test utilities
>       - Browse queue contents
>       - Send messages
>    - Easy to instruct users on it's use to obtain important details when
>    providing remote support
>
> It would be great to have a meaningful discussion that moves us forward.
> Right now, this feels to me like a simple re-hash of the old discussion.
>
> Art
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation or
> > removal conversation.
> >
> > I realize this conversation has been had multiple times in the past
> > already.  However, since those conversations have taken place there
> > has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole for
> > several years.  There continues to be reported bugs against the web
> > console in jira and they are ignored.  People also submit PRs to
> > improve the webconsole and they are ignored.
> >
> > In the past there has been a lot of pushback against outright removal
> > of the webconsole because there are people who find it useful.  I
> > think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be to go the
> > LevelDB route.
> >
> > Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that it is not
> > maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable it by default)
> > but still include it so users have the option to turn it on if they
> > want?
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

paulgale
If the definition of 'the problem' is that no committers are willing to
maintain the web console then that's an internal leadership problem of the
group. Please don't try to 'fix' that by making it a problem for end users
by deprecating/removing it. Why not address the problem of lack of interest
from a leadership perspective?

So, if at any time in the future some popular feature/component of ActiveMQ
stops being maintained owing to lack of interest by committers, should that
necessarily qualify it to become deprecated/removed? I don't think so. As
an end user with hundreds of deployed instances of ActiveMQ in Production
it would be very annoying if the web console were to be deprecated. Let's
face it when someone wants it to be 'deprecated' they just want to move it
one step closer to be being 'removed.' As an end user we've been screwed
over a few times in the past with such decisions were made on a whim
because something was convenient for committers; changing the use of
activemq-all.jar springs to mind - that was big for us. Each time these
incidents happen it only illustrates further that some committers are out
of touch with the user base, or perhaps they're not but have a different
agenda.

AFAIK there doesn't appear to be a technical impediment for supporting the
web console, rather it seems to be a political one. It's a people problem.


Thanks,
Paul

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > What changed since last opening this question?
>
> My understanding (based on Chris' email) is that nothing has changed since
> the last discussion, and that is precisely the problem.
>
> > What problems are being solved by removing it?
>
> I believe Chris is proposing that it be deprecated and disabled by default
> rather than removed. The problem solved by this is ostensibly that users
> would understand it is no longer maintained (i.e. de facto truth) and that
> there are risks associated with enabling it.
>
> > How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be provided
> to end-users?
>
> Wouldn't users who want the functions provided by the web console could
> still have them by enabling it (assuming they're willing to take the
> associated risks)?
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > The ActiveMQ WebConsole fills a very important role in the solution.
> >
> > So here are the questions coming to mind when reading the request for
> > deprecation:
> >
> >    1. What changed since last opening this question?
> >    2. What problems are being solved by removing it?
> >    3. How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be
> >    provided to end-users?
> >
> > Here are some of the important functions:
> >
> >    - Quick view of broker status after initial installation of broker,
> >    helpful for new installations and for those learning to use the broker
> > for
> >    the first time.
> >       - Greatly reduces time to get started using the broker effectively
> >    - Zero configuration, out-of-the-box Management Console
> >    - Access to critical broker details, including:
> >       - memory and store usage
> >       - listing of queues and topics
> >       - viewing connections to the broker
> >       - viewing NOB connections
> >    - Handy test utilities
> >       - Browse queue contents
> >       - Send messages
> >    - Easy to instruct users on it's use to obtain important details when
> >    providing remote support
> >
> > It would be great to have a meaningful discussion that moves us forward.
> > Right now, this feels to me like a simple re-hash of the old discussion.
> >
> > Art
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation or
> > > removal conversation.
> > >
> > > I realize this conversation has been had multiple times in the past
> > > already.  However, since those conversations have taken place there
> > > has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole for
> > > several years.  There continues to be reported bugs against the web
> > > console in jira and they are ignored.  People also submit PRs to
> > > improve the webconsole and they are ignored.
> > >
> > > In the past there has been a lot of pushback against outright removal
> > > of the webconsole because there are people who find it useful.  I
> > > think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be to go the
> > > LevelDB route.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that it is not
> > > maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable it by default)
> > > but still include it so users have the option to turn it on if they
> > > want?
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

christopher.l.shannon
Paul,

Yes it is mostly a people problem but that doesn't make it any less of
a problem.  It's still a big problem. Apache is a volunteer
organization.  You can't make anyone support something they don't want
to.  The reality is that no one wants to maintain it, there's been
several years of evidence to prove that.

I would rather deprecate something and make it known it's not
maintained so at least people are aware of the risks involved with
using unmaintained software versus leaving things status quo and
pretending everything is fine when it isn't.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Paul Gale <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If the definition of 'the problem' is that no committers are willing to
> maintain the web console then that's an internal leadership problem of the
> group. Please don't try to 'fix' that by making it a problem for end users
> by deprecating/removing it. Why not address the problem of lack of interest
> from a leadership perspective?
>
> So, if at any time in the future some popular feature/component of ActiveMQ
> stops being maintained owing to lack of interest by committers, should that
> necessarily qualify it to become deprecated/removed? I don't think so. As
> an end user with hundreds of deployed instances of ActiveMQ in Production
> it would be very annoying if the web console were to be deprecated. Let's
> face it when someone wants it to be 'deprecated' they just want to move it
> one step closer to be being 'removed.' As an end user we've been screwed
> over a few times in the past with such decisions were made on a whim
> because something was convenient for committers; changing the use of
> activemq-all.jar springs to mind - that was big for us. Each time these
> incidents happen it only illustrates further that some committers are out
> of touch with the user base, or perhaps they're not but have a different
> agenda.
>
> AFAIK there doesn't appear to be a technical impediment for supporting the
> web console, rather it seems to be a political one. It's a people problem.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> > What changed since last opening this question?
>>
>> My understanding (based on Chris' email) is that nothing has changed since
>> the last discussion, and that is precisely the problem.
>>
>> > What problems are being solved by removing it?
>>
>> I believe Chris is proposing that it be deprecated and disabled by default
>> rather than removed. The problem solved by this is ostensibly that users
>> would understand it is no longer maintained (i.e. de facto truth) and that
>> there are risks associated with enabling it.
>>
>> > How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be provided
>> to end-users?
>>
>> Wouldn't users who want the functions provided by the web console could
>> still have them by enabling it (assuming they're willing to take the
>> associated risks)?
>>
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > The ActiveMQ WebConsole fills a very important role in the solution.
>> >
>> > So here are the questions coming to mind when reading the request for
>> > deprecation:
>> >
>> >    1. What changed since last opening this question?
>> >    2. What problems are being solved by removing it?
>> >    3. How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be
>> >    provided to end-users?
>> >
>> > Here are some of the important functions:
>> >
>> >    - Quick view of broker status after initial installation of broker,
>> >    helpful for new installations and for those learning to use the broker
>> > for
>> >    the first time.
>> >       - Greatly reduces time to get started using the broker effectively
>> >    - Zero configuration, out-of-the-box Management Console
>> >    - Access to critical broker details, including:
>> >       - memory and store usage
>> >       - listing of queues and topics
>> >       - viewing connections to the broker
>> >       - viewing NOB connections
>> >    - Handy test utilities
>> >       - Browse queue contents
>> >       - Send messages
>> >    - Easy to instruct users on it's use to obtain important details when
>> >    providing remote support
>> >
>> > It would be great to have a meaningful discussion that moves us forward.
>> > Right now, this feels to me like a simple re-hash of the old discussion.
>> >
>> > Art
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation or
>> > > removal conversation.
>> > >
>> > > I realize this conversation has been had multiple times in the past
>> > > already.  However, since those conversations have taken place there
>> > > has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole for
>> > > several years.  There continues to be reported bugs against the web
>> > > console in jira and they are ignored.  People also submit PRs to
>> > > improve the webconsole and they are ignored.
>> > >
>> > > In the past there has been a lot of pushback against outright removal
>> > > of the webconsole because there are people who find it useful.  I
>> > > think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be to go the
>> > > LevelDB route.
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that it is not
>> > > maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable it by default)
>> > > but still include it so users have the option to turn it on if they
>> > > want?
>> > >
>> >
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

artnaseef
Hey Chris - I looked for you in the IRC channel but didn't see you (sorry
if I missed you).

I'd like to understand the concerns and talk to you about addressing them.

Can you either enumerate the big concerns here, or give me a shout?  IRC or
email work.

Art


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Christopher Shannon <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> Yes it is mostly a people problem but that doesn't make it any less of
> a problem.  It's still a big problem. Apache is a volunteer
> organization.  You can't make anyone support something they don't want
> to.  The reality is that no one wants to maintain it, there's been
> several years of evidence to prove that.
>
> I would rather deprecate something and make it known it's not
> maintained so at least people are aware of the risks involved with
> using unmaintained software versus leaving things status quo and
> pretending everything is fine when it isn't.
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Paul Gale <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > If the definition of 'the problem' is that no committers are willing to
> > maintain the web console then that's an internal leadership problem of
> the
> > group. Please don't try to 'fix' that by making it a problem for end
> users
> > by deprecating/removing it. Why not address the problem of lack of
> interest
> > from a leadership perspective?
> >
> > So, if at any time in the future some popular feature/component of
> ActiveMQ
> > stops being maintained owing to lack of interest by committers, should
> that
> > necessarily qualify it to become deprecated/removed? I don't think so. As
> > an end user with hundreds of deployed instances of ActiveMQ in Production
> > it would be very annoying if the web console were to be deprecated. Let's
> > face it when someone wants it to be 'deprecated' they just want to move
> it
> > one step closer to be being 'removed.' As an end user we've been screwed
> > over a few times in the past with such decisions were made on a whim
> > because something was convenient for committers; changing the use of
> > activemq-all.jar springs to mind - that was big for us. Each time these
> > incidents happen it only illustrates further that some committers are out
> > of touch with the user base, or perhaps they're not but have a different
> > agenda.
> >
> > AFAIK there doesn't appear to be a technical impediment for supporting
> the
> > web console, rather it seems to be a political one. It's a people
> problem.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> > What changed since last opening this question?
> >>
> >> My understanding (based on Chris' email) is that nothing has changed
> since
> >> the last discussion, and that is precisely the problem.
> >>
> >> > What problems are being solved by removing it?
> >>
> >> I believe Chris is proposing that it be deprecated and disabled by
> default
> >> rather than removed. The problem solved by this is ostensibly that users
> >> would understand it is no longer maintained (i.e. de facto truth) and
> that
> >> there are risks associated with enabling it.
> >>
> >> > How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be
> provided
> >> to end-users?
> >>
> >> Wouldn't users who want the functions provided by the web console could
> >> still have them by enabling it (assuming they're willing to take the
> >> associated risks)?
> >>
> >>
> >> Justin
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The ActiveMQ WebConsole fills a very important role in the solution.
> >> >
> >> > So here are the questions coming to mind when reading the request for
> >> > deprecation:
> >> >
> >> >    1. What changed since last opening this question?
> >> >    2. What problems are being solved by removing it?
> >> >    3. How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be
> >> >    provided to end-users?
> >> >
> >> > Here are some of the important functions:
> >> >
> >> >    - Quick view of broker status after initial installation of broker,
> >> >    helpful for new installations and for those learning to use the
> broker
> >> > for
> >> >    the first time.
> >> >       - Greatly reduces time to get started using the broker
> effectively
> >> >    - Zero configuration, out-of-the-box Management Console
> >> >    - Access to critical broker details, including:
> >> >       - memory and store usage
> >> >       - listing of queues and topics
> >> >       - viewing connections to the broker
> >> >       - viewing NOB connections
> >> >    - Handy test utilities
> >> >       - Browse queue contents
> >> >       - Send messages
> >> >    - Easy to instruct users on it's use to obtain important details
> when
> >> >    providing remote support
> >> >
> >> > It would be great to have a meaningful discussion that moves us
> forward.
> >> > Right now, this feels to me like a simple re-hash of the old
> discussion.
> >> >
> >> > Art
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation or
> >> > > removal conversation.
> >> > >
> >> > > I realize this conversation has been had multiple times in the past
> >> > > already.  However, since those conversations have taken place there
> >> > > has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole for
> >> > > several years.  There continues to be reported bugs against the web
> >> > > console in jira and they are ignored.  People also submit PRs to
> >> > > improve the webconsole and they are ignored.
> >> > >
> >> > > In the past there has been a lot of pushback against outright
> removal
> >> > > of the webconsole because there are people who find it useful.  I
> >> > > think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be to go the
> >> > > LevelDB route.
> >> > >
> >> > > Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that it is not
> >> > > maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable it by
> default)
> >> > > but still include it so users have the option to turn it on if they
> >> > > want?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

clebertsuconic
This is not about opinions.. it's a fact.. people either fix it.. .or
deprecate it! Simple!


If no one is fixing it.. it will be deprecated.. I don't think this
even requires a voting as this is based in facts.. not opinions.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey Chris - I looked for you in the IRC channel but didn't see you (sorry
> if I missed you).
>
> I'd like to understand the concerns and talk to you about addressing them.
>
> Can you either enumerate the big concerns here, or give me a shout?  IRC or
> email work.
>
> Art
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Paul,
>>
>> Yes it is mostly a people problem but that doesn't make it any less of
>> a problem.  It's still a big problem. Apache is a volunteer
>> organization.  You can't make anyone support something they don't want
>> to.  The reality is that no one wants to maintain it, there's been
>> several years of evidence to prove that.
>>
>> I would rather deprecate something and make it known it's not
>> maintained so at least people are aware of the risks involved with
>> using unmaintained software versus leaving things status quo and
>> pretending everything is fine when it isn't.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Paul Gale <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > If the definition of 'the problem' is that no committers are willing to
>> > maintain the web console then that's an internal leadership problem of
>> the
>> > group. Please don't try to 'fix' that by making it a problem for end
>> users
>> > by deprecating/removing it. Why not address the problem of lack of
>> interest
>> > from a leadership perspective?
>> >
>> > So, if at any time in the future some popular feature/component of
>> ActiveMQ
>> > stops being maintained owing to lack of interest by committers, should
>> that
>> > necessarily qualify it to become deprecated/removed? I don't think so. As
>> > an end user with hundreds of deployed instances of ActiveMQ in Production
>> > it would be very annoying if the web console were to be deprecated. Let's
>> > face it when someone wants it to be 'deprecated' they just want to move
>> it
>> > one step closer to be being 'removed.' As an end user we've been screwed
>> > over a few times in the past with such decisions were made on a whim
>> > because something was convenient for committers; changing the use of
>> > activemq-all.jar springs to mind - that was big for us. Each time these
>> > incidents happen it only illustrates further that some committers are out
>> > of touch with the user base, or perhaps they're not but have a different
>> > agenda.
>> >
>> > AFAIK there doesn't appear to be a technical impediment for supporting
>> the
>> > web console, rather it seems to be a political one. It's a people
>> problem.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Paul
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > What changed since last opening this question?
>> >>
>> >> My understanding (based on Chris' email) is that nothing has changed
>> since
>> >> the last discussion, and that is precisely the problem.
>> >>
>> >> > What problems are being solved by removing it?
>> >>
>> >> I believe Chris is proposing that it be deprecated and disabled by
>> default
>> >> rather than removed. The problem solved by this is ostensibly that users
>> >> would understand it is no longer maintained (i.e. de facto truth) and
>> that
>> >> there are risks associated with enabling it.
>> >>
>> >> > How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be
>> provided
>> >> to end-users?
>> >>
>> >> Wouldn't users who want the functions provided by the web console could
>> >> still have them by enabling it (assuming they're willing to take the
>> >> associated risks)?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Justin
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The ActiveMQ WebConsole fills a very important role in the solution.
>> >> >
>> >> > So here are the questions coming to mind when reading the request for
>> >> > deprecation:
>> >> >
>> >> >    1. What changed since last opening this question?
>> >> >    2. What problems are being solved by removing it?
>> >> >    3. How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be
>> >> >    provided to end-users?
>> >> >
>> >> > Here are some of the important functions:
>> >> >
>> >> >    - Quick view of broker status after initial installation of broker,
>> >> >    helpful for new installations and for those learning to use the
>> broker
>> >> > for
>> >> >    the first time.
>> >> >       - Greatly reduces time to get started using the broker
>> effectively
>> >> >    - Zero configuration, out-of-the-box Management Console
>> >> >    - Access to critical broker details, including:
>> >> >       - memory and store usage
>> >> >       - listing of queues and topics
>> >> >       - viewing connections to the broker
>> >> >       - viewing NOB connections
>> >> >    - Handy test utilities
>> >> >       - Browse queue contents
>> >> >       - Send messages
>> >> >    - Easy to instruct users on it's use to obtain important details
>> when
>> >> >    providing remote support
>> >> >
>> >> > It would be great to have a meaningful discussion that moves us
>> forward.
>> >> > Right now, this feels to me like a simple re-hash of the old
>> discussion.
>> >> >
>> >> > Art
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation or
>> >> > > removal conversation.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I realize this conversation has been had multiple times in the past
>> >> > > already.  However, since those conversations have taken place there
>> >> > > has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole for
>> >> > > several years.  There continues to be reported bugs against the web
>> >> > > console in jira and they are ignored.  People also submit PRs to
>> >> > > improve the webconsole and they are ignored.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > In the past there has been a lot of pushback against outright
>> removal
>> >> > > of the webconsole because there are people who find it useful.  I
>> >> > > think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be to go the
>> >> > > LevelDB route.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that it is not
>> >> > > maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable it by
>> default)
>> >> > > but still include it so users have the option to turn it on if they
>> >> > > want?
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

christopher.l.shannon
Art,

I think my main concern was stated in my first email and Justin
re-iterated everything and is spot on.  The webconsole is just simply
not maintained anymore which is why I proposed deprecating it.

Chris

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Clebert Suconic
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is not about opinions.. it's a fact.. people either fix it.. .or
> deprecate it! Simple!
>
>
> If no one is fixing it.. it will be deprecated.. I don't think this
> even requires a voting as this is based in facts.. not opinions.
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hey Chris - I looked for you in the IRC channel but didn't see you (sorry
>> if I missed you).
>>
>> I'd like to understand the concerns and talk to you about addressing them.
>>
>> Can you either enumerate the big concerns here, or give me a shout?  IRC or
>> email work.
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> Yes it is mostly a people problem but that doesn't make it any less of
>>> a problem.  It's still a big problem. Apache is a volunteer
>>> organization.  You can't make anyone support something they don't want
>>> to.  The reality is that no one wants to maintain it, there's been
>>> several years of evidence to prove that.
>>>
>>> I would rather deprecate something and make it known it's not
>>> maintained so at least people are aware of the risks involved with
>>> using unmaintained software versus leaving things status quo and
>>> pretending everything is fine when it isn't.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Paul Gale <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > If the definition of 'the problem' is that no committers are willing to
>>> > maintain the web console then that's an internal leadership problem of
>>> the
>>> > group. Please don't try to 'fix' that by making it a problem for end
>>> users
>>> > by deprecating/removing it. Why not address the problem of lack of
>>> interest
>>> > from a leadership perspective?
>>> >
>>> > So, if at any time in the future some popular feature/component of
>>> ActiveMQ
>>> > stops being maintained owing to lack of interest by committers, should
>>> that
>>> > necessarily qualify it to become deprecated/removed? I don't think so. As
>>> > an end user with hundreds of deployed instances of ActiveMQ in Production
>>> > it would be very annoying if the web console were to be deprecated. Let's
>>> > face it when someone wants it to be 'deprecated' they just want to move
>>> it
>>> > one step closer to be being 'removed.' As an end user we've been screwed
>>> > over a few times in the past with such decisions were made on a whim
>>> > because something was convenient for committers; changing the use of
>>> > activemq-all.jar springs to mind - that was big for us. Each time these
>>> > incidents happen it only illustrates further that some committers are out
>>> > of touch with the user base, or perhaps they're not but have a different
>>> > agenda.
>>> >
>>> > AFAIK there doesn't appear to be a technical impediment for supporting
>>> the
>>> > web console, rather it seems to be a political one. It's a people
>>> problem.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Paul
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> > What changed since last opening this question?
>>> >>
>>> >> My understanding (based on Chris' email) is that nothing has changed
>>> since
>>> >> the last discussion, and that is precisely the problem.
>>> >>
>>> >> > What problems are being solved by removing it?
>>> >>
>>> >> I believe Chris is proposing that it be deprecated and disabled by
>>> default
>>> >> rather than removed. The problem solved by this is ostensibly that users
>>> >> would understand it is no longer maintained (i.e. de facto truth) and
>>> that
>>> >> there are risks associated with enabling it.
>>> >>
>>> >> > How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be
>>> provided
>>> >> to end-users?
>>> >>
>>> >> Wouldn't users who want the functions provided by the web console could
>>> >> still have them by enabling it (assuming they're willing to take the
>>> >> associated risks)?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Justin
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > The ActiveMQ WebConsole fills a very important role in the solution.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > So here are the questions coming to mind when reading the request for
>>> >> > deprecation:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >    1. What changed since last opening this question?
>>> >> >    2. What problems are being solved by removing it?
>>> >> >    3. How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be
>>> >> >    provided to end-users?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Here are some of the important functions:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >    - Quick view of broker status after initial installation of broker,
>>> >> >    helpful for new installations and for those learning to use the
>>> broker
>>> >> > for
>>> >> >    the first time.
>>> >> >       - Greatly reduces time to get started using the broker
>>> effectively
>>> >> >    - Zero configuration, out-of-the-box Management Console
>>> >> >    - Access to critical broker details, including:
>>> >> >       - memory and store usage
>>> >> >       - listing of queues and topics
>>> >> >       - viewing connections to the broker
>>> >> >       - viewing NOB connections
>>> >> >    - Handy test utilities
>>> >> >       - Browse queue contents
>>> >> >       - Send messages
>>> >> >    - Easy to instruct users on it's use to obtain important details
>>> when
>>> >> >    providing remote support
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It would be great to have a meaningful discussion that moves us
>>> forward.
>>> >> > Right now, this feels to me like a simple re-hash of the old
>>> discussion.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Art
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>>> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation or
>>> >> > > removal conversation.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I realize this conversation has been had multiple times in the past
>>> >> > > already.  However, since those conversations have taken place there
>>> >> > > has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole for
>>> >> > > several years.  There continues to be reported bugs against the web
>>> >> > > console in jira and they are ignored.  People also submit PRs to
>>> >> > > improve the webconsole and they are ignored.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > In the past there has been a lot of pushback against outright
>>> removal
>>> >> > > of the webconsole because there are people who find it useful.  I
>>> >> > > think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be to go the
>>> >> > > LevelDB route.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that it is not
>>> >> > > maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable it by
>>> default)
>>> >> > > but still include it so users have the option to turn it on if they
>>> >> > > want?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

paulgale
So, are you saying therefore that if someone were to fix/patch some of the
outstanding issues with the web console then you'd be happy with not
deprecating it? After all, that would then satisfy the criteria that it's
being maintained, or is there something else?

Thanks,
Paul

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Christopher Shannon <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Art,
>
> I think my main concern was stated in my first email and Justin
> re-iterated everything and is spot on.  The webconsole is just simply
> not maintained anymore which is why I proposed deprecating it.
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Clebert Suconic
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > This is not about opinions.. it's a fact.. people either fix it.. .or
> > deprecate it! Simple!
> >
> >
> > If no one is fixing it.. it will be deprecated.. I don't think this
> > even requires a voting as this is based in facts.. not opinions.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Hey Chris - I looked for you in the IRC channel but didn't see you
> (sorry
> >> if I missed you).
> >>
> >> I'd like to understand the concerns and talk to you about addressing
> them.
> >>
> >> Can you either enumerate the big concerns here, or give me a shout?
> IRC or
> >> email work.
> >>
> >> Art
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Paul,
> >>>
> >>> Yes it is mostly a people problem but that doesn't make it any less of
> >>> a problem.  It's still a big problem. Apache is a volunteer
> >>> organization.  You can't make anyone support something they don't want
> >>> to.  The reality is that no one wants to maintain it, there's been
> >>> several years of evidence to prove that.
> >>>
> >>> I would rather deprecate something and make it known it's not
> >>> maintained so at least people are aware of the risks involved with
> >>> using unmaintained software versus leaving things status quo and
> >>> pretending everything is fine when it isn't.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Paul Gale <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>> > If the definition of 'the problem' is that no committers are willing
> to
> >>> > maintain the web console then that's an internal leadership problem
> of
> >>> the
> >>> > group. Please don't try to 'fix' that by making it a problem for end
> >>> users
> >>> > by deprecating/removing it. Why not address the problem of lack of
> >>> interest
> >>> > from a leadership perspective?
> >>> >
> >>> > So, if at any time in the future some popular feature/component of
> >>> ActiveMQ
> >>> > stops being maintained owing to lack of interest by committers,
> should
> >>> that
> >>> > necessarily qualify it to become deprecated/removed? I don't think
> so. As
> >>> > an end user with hundreds of deployed instances of ActiveMQ in
> Production
> >>> > it would be very annoying if the web console were to be deprecated.
> Let's
> >>> > face it when someone wants it to be 'deprecated' they just want to
> move
> >>> it
> >>> > one step closer to be being 'removed.' As an end user we've been
> screwed
> >>> > over a few times in the past with such decisions were made on a whim
> >>> > because something was convenient for committers; changing the use of
> >>> > activemq-all.jar springs to mind - that was big for us. Each time
> these
> >>> > incidents happen it only illustrates further that some committers
> are out
> >>> > of touch with the user base, or perhaps they're not but have a
> different
> >>> > agenda.
> >>> >
> >>> > AFAIK there doesn't appear to be a technical impediment for
> supporting
> >>> the
> >>> > web console, rather it seems to be a political one. It's a people
> >>> problem.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> > Paul
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Justin Bertram <
> [hidden email]>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> > What changed since last opening this question?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> My understanding (based on Chris' email) is that nothing has changed
> >>> since
> >>> >> the last discussion, and that is precisely the problem.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > What problems are being solved by removing it?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I believe Chris is proposing that it be deprecated and disabled by
> >>> default
> >>> >> rather than removed. The problem solved by this is ostensibly that
> users
> >>> >> would understand it is no longer maintained (i.e. de facto truth)
> and
> >>> that
> >>> >> there are risks associated with enabling it.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be
> >>> provided
> >>> >> to end-users?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Wouldn't users who want the functions provided by the web console
> could
> >>> >> still have them by enabling it (assuming they're willing to take the
> >>> >> associated risks)?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Justin
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > The ActiveMQ WebConsole fills a very important role in the
> solution.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > So here are the questions coming to mind when reading the request
> for
> >>> >> > deprecation:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >    1. What changed since last opening this question?
> >>> >> >    2. What problems are being solved by removing it?
> >>> >> >    3. How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole
> be
> >>> >> >    provided to end-users?
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Here are some of the important functions:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >    - Quick view of broker status after initial installation of
> broker,
> >>> >> >    helpful for new installations and for those learning to use the
> >>> broker
> >>> >> > for
> >>> >> >    the first time.
> >>> >> >       - Greatly reduces time to get started using the broker
> >>> effectively
> >>> >> >    - Zero configuration, out-of-the-box Management Console
> >>> >> >    - Access to critical broker details, including:
> >>> >> >       - memory and store usage
> >>> >> >       - listing of queues and topics
> >>> >> >       - viewing connections to the broker
> >>> >> >       - viewing NOB connections
> >>> >> >    - Handy test utilities
> >>> >> >       - Browse queue contents
> >>> >> >       - Send messages
> >>> >> >    - Easy to instruct users on it's use to obtain important
> details
> >>> when
> >>> >> >    providing remote support
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > It would be great to have a meaningful discussion that moves us
> >>> forward.
> >>> >> > Right now, this feels to me like a simple re-hash of the old
> >>> discussion.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Art
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >>> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation or
> >>> >> > > removal conversation.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > I realize this conversation has been had multiple times in the
> past
> >>> >> > > already.  However, since those conversations have taken place
> there
> >>> >> > > has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole
> for
> >>> >> > > several years.  There continues to be reported bugs against the
> web
> >>> >> > > console in jira and they are ignored.  People also submit PRs to
> >>> >> > > improve the webconsole and they are ignored.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > In the past there has been a lot of pushback against outright
> >>> removal
> >>> >> > > of the webconsole because there are people who find it useful.
> I
> >>> >> > > think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be to go the
> >>> >> > > LevelDB route.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that it is not
> >>> >> > > maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable it by
> >>> default)
> >>> >> > > but still include it so users have the option to turn it on if
> they
> >>> >> > > want?
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

artnaseef
In reply to this post by christopher.l.shannon
Please provide details Chris.  Otherwise, I reject the assertion that it is
"unmaintained".  That's not actionable, and therefore is pure criticism
that won't lead to constructive results.

Art


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Christopher Shannon <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Art,
>
> I think my main concern was stated in my first email and Justin
> re-iterated everything and is spot on.  The webconsole is just simply
> not maintained anymore which is why I proposed deprecating it.
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Clebert Suconic
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > This is not about opinions.. it's a fact.. people either fix it.. .or
> > deprecate it! Simple!
> >
> >
> > If no one is fixing it.. it will be deprecated.. I don't think this
> > even requires a voting as this is based in facts.. not opinions.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Hey Chris - I looked for you in the IRC channel but didn't see you
> (sorry
> >> if I missed you).
> >>
> >> I'd like to understand the concerns and talk to you about addressing
> them.
> >>
> >> Can you either enumerate the big concerns here, or give me a shout?
> IRC or
> >> email work.
> >>
> >> Art
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Paul,
> >>>
> >>> Yes it is mostly a people problem but that doesn't make it any less of
> >>> a problem.  It's still a big problem. Apache is a volunteer
> >>> organization.  You can't make anyone support something they don't want
> >>> to.  The reality is that no one wants to maintain it, there's been
> >>> several years of evidence to prove that.
> >>>
> >>> I would rather deprecate something and make it known it's not
> >>> maintained so at least people are aware of the risks involved with
> >>> using unmaintained software versus leaving things status quo and
> >>> pretending everything is fine when it isn't.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Paul Gale <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>> > If the definition of 'the problem' is that no committers are willing
> to
> >>> > maintain the web console then that's an internal leadership problem
> of
> >>> the
> >>> > group. Please don't try to 'fix' that by making it a problem for end
> >>> users
> >>> > by deprecating/removing it. Why not address the problem of lack of
> >>> interest
> >>> > from a leadership perspective?
> >>> >
> >>> > So, if at any time in the future some popular feature/component of
> >>> ActiveMQ
> >>> > stops being maintained owing to lack of interest by committers,
> should
> >>> that
> >>> > necessarily qualify it to become deprecated/removed? I don't think
> so. As
> >>> > an end user with hundreds of deployed instances of ActiveMQ in
> Production
> >>> > it would be very annoying if the web console were to be deprecated.
> Let's
> >>> > face it when someone wants it to be 'deprecated' they just want to
> move
> >>> it
> >>> > one step closer to be being 'removed.' As an end user we've been
> screwed
> >>> > over a few times in the past with such decisions were made on a whim
> >>> > because something was convenient for committers; changing the use of
> >>> > activemq-all.jar springs to mind - that was big for us. Each time
> these
> >>> > incidents happen it only illustrates further that some committers
> are out
> >>> > of touch with the user base, or perhaps they're not but have a
> different
> >>> > agenda.
> >>> >
> >>> > AFAIK there doesn't appear to be a technical impediment for
> supporting
> >>> the
> >>> > web console, rather it seems to be a political one. It's a people
> >>> problem.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> > Paul
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Justin Bertram <
> [hidden email]>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> > What changed since last opening this question?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> My understanding (based on Chris' email) is that nothing has changed
> >>> since
> >>> >> the last discussion, and that is precisely the problem.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > What problems are being solved by removing it?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I believe Chris is proposing that it be deprecated and disabled by
> >>> default
> >>> >> rather than removed. The problem solved by this is ostensibly that
> users
> >>> >> would understand it is no longer maintained (i.e. de facto truth)
> and
> >>> that
> >>> >> there are risks associated with enabling it.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be
> >>> provided
> >>> >> to end-users?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Wouldn't users who want the functions provided by the web console
> could
> >>> >> still have them by enabling it (assuming they're willing to take the
> >>> >> associated risks)?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Justin
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > The ActiveMQ WebConsole fills a very important role in the
> solution.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > So here are the questions coming to mind when reading the request
> for
> >>> >> > deprecation:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >    1. What changed since last opening this question?
> >>> >> >    2. What problems are being solved by removing it?
> >>> >> >    3. How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole
> be
> >>> >> >    provided to end-users?
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Here are some of the important functions:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >    - Quick view of broker status after initial installation of
> broker,
> >>> >> >    helpful for new installations and for those learning to use the
> >>> broker
> >>> >> > for
> >>> >> >    the first time.
> >>> >> >       - Greatly reduces time to get started using the broker
> >>> effectively
> >>> >> >    - Zero configuration, out-of-the-box Management Console
> >>> >> >    - Access to critical broker details, including:
> >>> >> >       - memory and store usage
> >>> >> >       - listing of queues and topics
> >>> >> >       - viewing connections to the broker
> >>> >> >       - viewing NOB connections
> >>> >> >    - Handy test utilities
> >>> >> >       - Browse queue contents
> >>> >> >       - Send messages
> >>> >> >    - Easy to instruct users on it's use to obtain important
> details
> >>> when
> >>> >> >    providing remote support
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > It would be great to have a meaningful discussion that moves us
> >>> forward.
> >>> >> > Right now, this feels to me like a simple re-hash of the old
> >>> discussion.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Art
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> >>> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation or
> >>> >> > > removal conversation.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > I realize this conversation has been had multiple times in the
> past
> >>> >> > > already.  However, since those conversations have taken place
> there
> >>> >> > > has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole
> for
> >>> >> > > several years.  There continues to be reported bugs against the
> web
> >>> >> > > console in jira and they are ignored.  People also submit PRs to
> >>> >> > > improve the webconsole and they are ignored.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > In the past there has been a lot of pushback against outright
> >>> removal
> >>> >> > > of the webconsole because there are people who find it useful.
> I
> >>> >> > > think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be to go the
> >>> >> > > LevelDB route.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that it is not
> >>> >> > > maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable it by
> >>> default)
> >>> >> > > but still include it so users have the option to turn it on if
> they
> >>> >> > > want?
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

jgenender
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
clebertsuconic wrote
> This is not about opinions.. it's a fact.. people either fix it.. .or
> deprecate it! Simple!

Clebert, harshness on these lists needs to be tempered.  No need for a bike
shed here.


clebertsuconic wrote
> If no one is fixing it.. it will be deprecated.. I don't think this
> even requires a voting as this is based in facts.. not opinions.

Unfortunately you are wrong... (opinion or not) this would require a vote,
and you, Mr. PMC member, should know this. :-)

Christopher put this out to get feedback from the community, which
ultimately would A) require input from the community for which Paul is a
member, and B) would require a vote to remove functionality.

I am guessing someone removing it on a whim w/o both discussion, consensus,
and a vote would likely be met with a bit of backlash.

Lets do this properly as Christopher is doing and get discussions going.

Jeff



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

christopher.l.shannon
In reply to this post by artnaseef
Art,

Before you say that what I'm talking about is pure criticism and not
actionable you should probably actually read private@

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Please provide details Chris.  Otherwise, I reject the assertion that it is
> "unmaintained".  That's not actionable, and therefore is pure criticism
> that won't lead to constructive results.
>
> Art
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Christopher Shannon <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Art,
>>
>> I think my main concern was stated in my first email and Justin
>> re-iterated everything and is spot on.  The webconsole is just simply
>> not maintained anymore which is why I proposed deprecating it.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Clebert Suconic
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > This is not about opinions.. it's a fact.. people either fix it.. .or
>> > deprecate it! Simple!
>> >
>> >
>> > If no one is fixing it.. it will be deprecated.. I don't think this
>> > even requires a voting as this is based in facts.. not opinions.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> Hey Chris - I looked for you in the IRC channel but didn't see you
>> (sorry
>> >> if I missed you).
>> >>
>> >> I'd like to understand the concerns and talk to you about addressing
>> them.
>> >>
>> >> Can you either enumerate the big concerns here, or give me a shout?
>> IRC or
>> >> email work.
>> >>
>> >> Art
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Paul,
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes it is mostly a people problem but that doesn't make it any less of
>> >>> a problem.  It's still a big problem. Apache is a volunteer
>> >>> organization.  You can't make anyone support something they don't want
>> >>> to.  The reality is that no one wants to maintain it, there's been
>> >>> several years of evidence to prove that.
>> >>>
>> >>> I would rather deprecate something and make it known it's not
>> >>> maintained so at least people are aware of the risks involved with
>> >>> using unmaintained software versus leaving things status quo and
>> >>> pretending everything is fine when it isn't.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Paul Gale <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >>> > If the definition of 'the problem' is that no committers are willing
>> to
>> >>> > maintain the web console then that's an internal leadership problem
>> of
>> >>> the
>> >>> > group. Please don't try to 'fix' that by making it a problem for end
>> >>> users
>> >>> > by deprecating/removing it. Why not address the problem of lack of
>> >>> interest
>> >>> > from a leadership perspective?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > So, if at any time in the future some popular feature/component of
>> >>> ActiveMQ
>> >>> > stops being maintained owing to lack of interest by committers,
>> should
>> >>> that
>> >>> > necessarily qualify it to become deprecated/removed? I don't think
>> so. As
>> >>> > an end user with hundreds of deployed instances of ActiveMQ in
>> Production
>> >>> > it would be very annoying if the web console were to be deprecated.
>> Let's
>> >>> > face it when someone wants it to be 'deprecated' they just want to
>> move
>> >>> it
>> >>> > one step closer to be being 'removed.' As an end user we've been
>> screwed
>> >>> > over a few times in the past with such decisions were made on a whim
>> >>> > because something was convenient for committers; changing the use of
>> >>> > activemq-all.jar springs to mind - that was big for us. Each time
>> these
>> >>> > incidents happen it only illustrates further that some committers
>> are out
>> >>> > of touch with the user base, or perhaps they're not but have a
>> different
>> >>> > agenda.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > AFAIK there doesn't appear to be a technical impediment for
>> supporting
>> >>> the
>> >>> > web console, rather it seems to be a political one. It's a people
>> >>> problem.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Thanks,
>> >>> > Paul
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Justin Bertram <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> > What changed since last opening this question?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> My understanding (based on Chris' email) is that nothing has changed
>> >>> since
>> >>> >> the last discussion, and that is precisely the problem.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > What problems are being solved by removing it?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I believe Chris is proposing that it be deprecated and disabled by
>> >>> default
>> >>> >> rather than removed. The problem solved by this is ostensibly that
>> users
>> >>> >> would understand it is no longer maintained (i.e. de facto truth)
>> and
>> >>> that
>> >>> >> there are risks associated with enabling it.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be
>> >>> provided
>> >>> >> to end-users?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Wouldn't users who want the functions provided by the web console
>> could
>> >>> >> still have them by enabling it (assuming they're willing to take the
>> >>> >> associated risks)?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Justin
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Arthur Naseef <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > The ActiveMQ WebConsole fills a very important role in the
>> solution.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > So here are the questions coming to mind when reading the request
>> for
>> >>> >> > deprecation:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >    1. What changed since last opening this question?
>> >>> >> >    2. What problems are being solved by removing it?
>> >>> >> >    3. How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole
>> be
>> >>> >> >    provided to end-users?
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Here are some of the important functions:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >    - Quick view of broker status after initial installation of
>> broker,
>> >>> >> >    helpful for new installations and for those learning to use the
>> >>> broker
>> >>> >> > for
>> >>> >> >    the first time.
>> >>> >> >       - Greatly reduces time to get started using the broker
>> >>> effectively
>> >>> >> >    - Zero configuration, out-of-the-box Management Console
>> >>> >> >    - Access to critical broker details, including:
>> >>> >> >       - memory and store usage
>> >>> >> >       - listing of queues and topics
>> >>> >> >       - viewing connections to the broker
>> >>> >> >       - viewing NOB connections
>> >>> >> >    - Handy test utilities
>> >>> >> >       - Browse queue contents
>> >>> >> >       - Send messages
>> >>> >> >    - Easy to instruct users on it's use to obtain important
>> details
>> >>> when
>> >>> >> >    providing remote support
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > It would be great to have a meaningful discussion that moves us
>> >>> forward.
>> >>> >> > Right now, this feels to me like a simple re-hash of the old
>> >>> discussion.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Art
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Christopher Shannon <
>> >>> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > > I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation or
>> >>> >> > > removal conversation.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > I realize this conversation has been had multiple times in the
>> past
>> >>> >> > > already.  However, since those conversations have taken place
>> there
>> >>> >> > > has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole
>> for
>> >>> >> > > several years.  There continues to be reported bugs against the
>> web
>> >>> >> > > console in jira and they are ignored.  People also submit PRs to
>> >>> >> > > improve the webconsole and they are ignored.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > In the past there has been a lot of pushback against outright
>> >>> removal
>> >>> >> > > of the webconsole because there are people who find it useful.
>> I
>> >>> >> > > think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be to go the
>> >>> >> > > LevelDB route.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that it is not
>> >>> >> > > maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable it by
>> >>> default)
>> >>> >> > > but still include it so users have the option to turn it on if
>> they
>> >>> >> > > want?
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by jgenender
I did not mean to be harsh.. I just tried to make a straight point.
either fix it or deprecate it.. discussions won't solve it!

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:52 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:

> clebertsuconic wrote
>> This is not about opinions.. it's a fact.. people either fix it.. .or
>> deprecate it! Simple!
>
> Clebert, harshness on these lists needs to be tempered.  No need for a bike
> shed here.
>
>
> clebertsuconic wrote
>> If no one is fixing it.. it will be deprecated.. I don't think this
>> even requires a voting as this is based in facts.. not opinions.
>
> Unfortunately you are wrong... (opinion or not) this would require a vote,
> and you, Mr. PMC member, should know this. :-)
>
> Christopher put this out to get feedback from the community, which
> ultimately would A) require input from the community for which Paul is a
> member, and B) would require a vote to remove functionality.
>
> I am guessing someone removing it on a whim w/o both discussion, consensus,
> and a vote would likely be met with a bit of backlash.
>
> Lets do this properly as Christopher is doing and get discussions going.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

jgenender
clebertsuconic wrote
> I did not mean to be harsh.. I just tried to make a straight point.
> either fix it or deprecate it.. discussions won't solve it!

It will solve it... because people will step up, or they won't, which means,
yes, the discussions will ultimately find a path to resolution.  This is the
Apache Way.

If we simply deprecated stuff just because something isn't loved, then I
think there are lots of ActiveMQ *and* Artemis items that would be
deprecated. :-)

So lets have a positive discussion to help resolve this.

At this point, Christopher brought up the potential deprecation for why...
we have a community member who still wants it to stay... and a committer who
would like to get issues open so he can step up and possibly make fixes (at
least from what I am reading).

That seems like a good positive discussion with potentially good results to
me.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

christopher.l.shannon
Paul,

Sure, if there were actually people around who wanted to maintain the
web console and did the work then that would be fine but that just
hasn't been the reality.

Furthermore, there are certain things that require PMC members to
handle so there would still need to be people on the PMC willing to
support the web console as well (which hasn't really been the case
other than a few minor fixes I have committed the past couple years).

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:09 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:

> clebertsuconic wrote
>> I did not mean to be harsh.. I just tried to make a straight point.
>> either fix it or deprecate it.. discussions won't solve it!
>
> It will solve it... because people will step up, or they won't, which means,
> yes, the discussions will ultimately find a path to resolution.  This is the
> Apache Way.
>
> If we simply deprecated stuff just because something isn't loved, then I
> think there are lots of ActiveMQ *and* Artemis items that would be
> deprecated. :-)
>
> So lets have a positive discussion to help resolve this.
>
> At this point, Christopher brought up the potential deprecation for why...
> we have a community member who still wants it to stay... and a committer who
> would like to get issues open so he can step up and possibly make fixes (at
> least from what I am reading).
>
> That seems like a good positive discussion with potentially good results to
> me.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

dkulp


> Furthermore, there are certain things that require PMC members to
> handle so there would still need to be people on the PMC willing to
> support the web console as well (which hasn't really been the case
> other than a few minor fixes I have committed the past couple years).

That’s something that is easily fixed by the PMC if someone steps up to work on the console:  vote them into the PMC.  


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Webconsole deprecation

artnaseef
I'd like to propose the following approach for the WebConsole:

   - AMQ adopts the position that the web console is for internal use only
   and that exposing it to third parties is not recommended due to possible
   vulnerabilities (I've personally always held this view and made this
   recommendation to all).  It is a "web console" for management and control
   of the broker - not a messaging application front-end.
   - We update the ActiveMQ website to clearly document this position and
   warn folks that it is enabled by default out-of-the-box
   - As CVEs are reported, we open jira tickets with the core details, and
   respond to the reporter with thanks for their contribution and that we may
   address at a future time, then reject the CVE with the statement that web
   console vulnerabilities are recognized and the solution is to firewall the
   web console

In addition, for those that feel a strong need to fully secure the broker
for whatever reason, how about we look to simplify the work of disabling
the console?  If there already exists a simple way, please let me know and
I'll update this page, http://activemq.apache.org/web-console.html, with
those instructions.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Art




On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> > Furthermore, there are certain things that require PMC members to
> > handle so there would still need to be people on the PMC willing to
> > support the web console as well (which hasn't really been the case
> > other than a few minor fixes I have committed the past couple years).
>
> That’s something that is easily fixed by the PMC if someone steps up to
> work on the console:  vote them into the PMC.
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>