On Friday, January 31, 2014, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: > Another thing - "22Mb legacy turd" is not a technical argument (at least, I > don't recognize it as one).
Memory usage is important to a message broker - which has to spool to disk as soon as it's out of RAM - which drastically affects performance. BTW that 22mb turd is just the compressed disk size of the code, never mind the runtime overhead I'm disappointed. > > If there are concerns with maintenance, what are they? No one wants to maintain it for one; it's been dormant for years; plus it's kinda crappy. Second there's a much better solution now. Though It'll probably annoy you if I mention it out loud. Third, jolokia is probably enough these days for runtime sevices (nice, lean REST/JSON API to the mbeans). Any devops can knock themselves out with any script/tool/web page with that. BTW before the Savoir/Talend zealots jump in with further conspiracy theories; jolokia isn't a Fuse/Red Hat project at all, we've no committers. It's just a great, lean solution to the management issue. I believe there are > currently only 3 outstanding Jira entries for the console. Look closer. But to be honest the code's been neglected with little community for so long, folks probably stopped raising anything but bugs & security issues many years ago > Right? It's old > - so what, it's not older than ActiveMQ ;-). It's not far off really - but key pieces of ActiveMQ get rewritten & improved all the time (eg level db). The web console is the same old crap it's always been. I wrote quite a bit of it many years ago; I apologise for it profusely- but it still deserves a sympathetic burial. Maybe struts 1.0 is up for a comeback too? I love that so many people are passionate about ActiveMQ. Me too! > I wish that > passion were being put into making it better and moving it forward Didn't you spot that quite a few of us have been putting our passion into a new amazing console for ActiveMQ, based on modern lightweight technology - that's not 21Mb of compressed turd? Or do you just discount all open source projects without an Apache PMC in principle without even looking? > rather > than making arguments without merit and laying out criticism - very > disappointing. I'm disappointed you're disappointed > So, back to defining the problem. All I've seen so far is the list of > security concerns from Hiram - thank you Hiram. Anything else? I do > believe I've read comments about difficulty maintaining it. Is that true, > or just an exaggerated expression of frustration? When code is dying and losing its utility & before it's buried in the Attic, the compassionate thing to do is see if it can survive without life support. Moving it to a sub project seems the right thing to do. If you can attract a community around it - great, fair play to you. If not, the attic is ok too (most code will end up there one day, it's just a question of time). Apache is all about communty and right now I don't see any around the old web console code. Moving it to a sub project will settle the argument once and for all in a fair, Apache Way. Whatever the outcome, the community wins > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677224.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- James ------- Red Hat Email: [email protected] Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ Open Source Integration
