>> Got these: Dormant. Alternative exists (this is an external solution, >> correct?). Jolokia. >> > > Its not a UI though, its a library; there's no branding so no issue. >
True. >> Why does it deserve a burial? If it's old and unmaintained, then why is >> it >> a pain point? > > > Its a big security risk, its a lousy console, it makes the project look > bad > and noone wants to maintain it any more - and it uses up a huge amount of > space in RAM and in the distro. I'm still not seeing strong evidence on this front. On the security front, I would argue that the best practice is not to open ActiveMQ to untrusted parties - not even the OpenWire interface. That reminds me that I have a couple of jira entries to create. On the "project look bad" front - have we had people state, "I refuse to use ActiveMQ because its console stinks?" Being almost exclusively a user of ActiveMQ for many years, I never once felt the console was a negative for the solution. However, I did wish for improvements (like being able to see full queue names in the Queue list-view). I get the desire for Hawt.io. It honestly looks to me, though, like this is really an attack to get rid of the current console and force the need for a new one, with Hawt.io being the only existing alternative. > >> As I've mentioned before, I've used it and still use it, and >> see people posting statements that they are using it too. >> > > Thats fine - as a separate project folks can still include it in distros > and use it. Please keep working with me on this. We can find a solution that will satisfy everone. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677395.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
