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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:25 AM >> To: <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi James, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your quick reply! >>>> >>>> >>>> Some comments below: >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: James Strachan <[email protected]> >>>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:42 AM >>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >>>>> 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/
