Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console? Did folks just lose interest? Why was it neglected?
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> wrote: > As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the CVE > reported against ActiveMQ in the past. Notice most deal with the old > console: > > http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html > > It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic status > refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today. > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: >> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the current console, >> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing. Positions are hard to >> understand, and options unclear. >> >> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined, then discuss >> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing solutions. >> >> So, what are the problems? >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > -- > Hiram Chirino > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. > [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
