The core ActiveMQ is all about message passing. The skill set needed for that is a bit different than the one need to design and build beautiful, modern web applications. Perhaps folks have just been focused in areas where they feel they can contribute best to.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Carman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- Hiram Chirino Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
