I will try write up some thoughts on this later, but I have a pretty strong opinion that the responsibility of the broker is only to offer an API that a web console may use. At my current client we wrote a web console using the jmx api. This lets us use a different JVM for the webapp, minimising the risk that an error in it will affect the service of the most critical piece of infrastructure on our platform. It also lets us monitor and work on messages on brokers that are not in a network from the same webapp. I don't know what things are like now, but this was difficult back in 5.5.
If this is interesting to people I can probably share a lot of thoughts and ideas about the web console. On Jan 31, 2014 6:14 PM, "Hiram Chirino" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
