Having a means for custom consoles to be built is nice. Having a standard console is still valuable, even essential in my opinion.
First off, people new to AMQ should not need to develop a console, and for quick adoption, need one out of the box. In addition, reports of problems seen on a custom console are more difficult to resolve. For one thing, amq maintainers have to wonder if there is a bug in the custom code, or even introduced into amq by a contract-violating console, or even just a latent amq bug triggered by one. Having a standard console means we can easily see the same experiences and fix any cause of problems. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 31, 2014, at 11:43 AM, "James Carman [via ActiveMQ]" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Right, but you were at the mercy of what was currently exposed. > Adding new functionality would involve instrumenting it in the MBeans > (if it's not already there of course). That's the key reason they > shouldn't be separated. > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Robin Kåveland Hansen <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 > >> <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> > >> 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 <[hidden email]> 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. > >> >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com > >> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Hiram Chirino > >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. > >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com > >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino > >> > > > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677212.html > To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined, click > here. > NAML -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677217.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
