Ah - good point. I was focusing on the problem definition. Now I think that's pretty much done (minus some refining) so I opened up to talking solutions.
My mistake. I will start another thread when I get back to a computer. Thank you Claus. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 4, 2014, at 7:20 AM, "Claus Ibsen [via ActiveMQ]" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:51 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> 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]" <[hidden > >> email]> 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 [hidden email] > >> 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: [hidden email] > 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 > > > 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-tp4677105p4677397.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-tp4677105p4677400.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
