This is not about opinions.. it's a fact.. people either fix it.. .or deprecate it! Simple!
If no one is fixing it.. it will be deprecated.. I don't think this even requires a voting as this is based in facts.. not opinions. On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Arthur Naseef <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Chris - I looked for you in the IRC channel but didn't see you (sorry > if I missed you). > > I'd like to understand the concerns and talk to you about addressing them. > > Can you either enumerate the big concerns here, or give me a shout? IRC or > email work. > > Art > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Christopher Shannon < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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? >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> -- Clebert Suconic
