Paul, Yes it is mostly a people problem but that doesn't make it any less of a problem. It's still a big problem. Apache is a volunteer organization. You can't make anyone support something they don't want to. The reality is that no one wants to maintain it, there's been several years of evidence to prove that.
I would rather deprecate something and make it known it's not maintained so at least people are aware of the risks involved with using unmaintained software versus leaving things status quo and pretending everything is fine when it isn't. On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Paul Gale <[email protected]> wrote: > If the definition of 'the problem' is that no committers are willing to > maintain the web console then that's an internal leadership problem of the > group. Please don't try to 'fix' that by making it a problem for end users > by deprecating/removing it. Why not address the problem of lack of interest > from a leadership perspective? > > So, if at any time in the future some popular feature/component of ActiveMQ > stops being maintained owing to lack of interest by committers, should that > necessarily qualify it to become deprecated/removed? I don't think so. As > an end user with hundreds of deployed instances of ActiveMQ in Production > it would be very annoying if the web console were to be deprecated. Let's > face it when someone wants it to be 'deprecated' they just want to move it > one step closer to be being 'removed.' As an end user we've been screwed > over a few times in the past with such decisions were made on a whim > because something was convenient for committers; changing the use of > activemq-all.jar springs to mind - that was big for us. Each time these > incidents happen it only illustrates further that some committers are out > of touch with the user base, or perhaps they're not but have a different > agenda. > > AFAIK there doesn't appear to be a technical impediment for supporting the > web console, rather it seems to be a political one. It's a people problem. > > > Thanks, > Paul > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > What changed since last opening this question? >> >> My understanding (based on Chris' email) is that nothing has changed since >> the last discussion, and that is precisely the problem. >> >> > What problems are being solved by removing it? >> >> I believe Chris is proposing that it be deprecated and disabled by default >> rather than removed. The problem solved by this is ostensibly that users >> would understand it is no longer maintained (i.e. de facto truth) and that >> there are risks associated with enabling it. >> >> > How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be provided >> to end-users? >> >> Wouldn't users who want the functions provided by the web console could >> still have them by enabling it (assuming they're willing to take the >> associated risks)? >> >> >> Justin >> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Arthur Naseef <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > The ActiveMQ WebConsole fills a very important role in the solution. >> > >> > So here are the questions coming to mind when reading the request for >> > deprecation: >> > >> > 1. What changed since last opening this question? >> > 2. What problems are being solved by removing it? >> > 3. How will the important functions provided by the WebConsole be >> > provided to end-users? >> > >> > Here are some of the important functions: >> > >> > - Quick view of broker status after initial installation of broker, >> > helpful for new installations and for those learning to use the broker >> > for >> > the first time. >> > - Greatly reduces time to get started using the broker effectively >> > - Zero configuration, out-of-the-box Management Console >> > - Access to critical broker details, including: >> > - memory and store usage >> > - listing of queues and topics >> > - viewing connections to the broker >> > - viewing NOB connections >> > - Handy test utilities >> > - Browse queue contents >> > - Send messages >> > - Easy to instruct users on it's use to obtain important details when >> > providing remote support >> > >> > It would be great to have a meaningful discussion that moves us forward. >> > Right now, this feels to me like a simple re-hash of the old discussion. >> > >> > Art >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Christopher Shannon < >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation or >> > > removal conversation. >> > > >> > > I realize this conversation has been had multiple times in the past >> > > already. However, since those conversations have taken place there >> > > has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole for >> > > several years. There continues to be reported bugs against the web >> > > console in jira and they are ignored. People also submit PRs to >> > > improve the webconsole and they are ignored. >> > > >> > > In the past there has been a lot of pushback against outright removal >> > > of the webconsole because there are people who find it useful. I >> > > think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be to go the >> > > LevelDB route. >> > > >> > > Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that it is not >> > > maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable it by default) >> > > but still include it so users have the option to turn it on if they >> > > want? >> > > >> > >>
