Just noticed that other thread, you can probably disregard the message from before. I seem to be slightly offtopic. On Jan 31, 2014 7:32 PM, "Robin Kåveland Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >> >
