Art, Before you say that what I'm talking about is pure criticism and not actionable you should probably actually read private@
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Arthur Naseef <[email protected]> wrote: > Please provide details Chris. Otherwise, I reject the assertion that it is > "unmaintained". That's not actionable, and therefore is pure criticism > that won't lead to constructive results. > > Art > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Christopher Shannon < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Art, >> >> I think my main concern was stated in my first email and Justin >> re-iterated everything and is spot on. The webconsole is just simply >> not maintained anymore which is why I proposed deprecating it. >> >> Chris >> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Clebert Suconic >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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 >>
