On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:51 PM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: > This discussion is regarding amq and the webconsole. The state of hawt.io > really has no bearing on the discussion as it is not part of amq. > > There are solid reasons amq needs a console. > > Please leave hawt.io out of the discussion. >
Arthur was it not YOU who wanted to keep this thread only about the original AMQ web console. Maybe you can start with yourself. > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:00 PM, "James Strachan-2 [via ActiveMQ]" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> LOL. Nice try James. >> >> Check out the current plugins for hawtio: >> http://hawt.io/plugins/index.html >> >> we've worked pretty well with every version of pretty much every decent >> open source software library from camel / cxf / activemq / karaf / tomcat / >> jetty / osgi / git / fabric8 / osgi / jmx / quartz - by being a stand alone >> separate project. And the hawtio ActiveMQ tooling is way beyond anything in >> the old console. Open source projects can actually, you know, collaborate. >> >> There's really no technical reason to force a 22Mb legacy turd into the >> ActiveMQ broker project or distro. >> >> >> >> >> On 31 January 2014 18:41, James Carman <[hidden email]> 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 >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> James >> ------- >> Red Hat >> >> Email: [hidden email] >> Web: http://fusesource.com >> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews >> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ >> >> Open Source Integration >> >> >> 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-tp4677105p4677218.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-tp4677105p4677221.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- Red Hat, Inc. Email: [email protected] Twitter: davsclaus Blog: http://davsclaus.com Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen Make your Camel applications look hawt, try: http://hawt.io
