On Jan 13, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Robert Davies <[email protected]> wrote:
> This discussion seems to have slowed/stopped. Although I don’t think there’s > a consensus - it seems moving the old console to a sub-project and making the > install optional from the distribution will cover most concerns raised. > Unless there’s objections - I’d like to suggest we make this happen asap and > get a new ActiveMQ release > out - unless we need to vote ? As someone who’s had to struggle to install things behind corporate firewalls and networks without internet connectivity and such on several occasions, I’d certainly prefer an “activemq-all” distribution or something that would be fully complete. Those “no internet” situations always annoy me when I have some optional thing that I really need at that moment. (yea, I admit, usually comes down to poor planning on my part) Dan > thanks, > > Rob > > On 9 Jan 2014, at 05:09, Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Dejan Bosanac <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> +1 from me as well. We have Jetty in and it should be easy to hot-deploy >>>> any war folks want to use for the web part of the broker. So we can exclude >>>> current web demos as well (which already don't start by default), then >>>> rework them and allow people to install them on demand. This will allow us >>>> to have much leaner broker installation. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> -- >>>> Dejan Bosanac >>>> ---------------------- >>>> Red Hat, Inc. >>>> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat >>>> [email protected] >>>> Twitter: @dejanb >>>> Blog: http://sensatic.net >>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Robert Davies <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree, this seems like the best approach so far. >>>>> >>>>> On 7 Jan 2014, at 23:27, Christian Posta <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 @ Claus, Jim, and Tim's thread of the discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Moving the console to a subproject separates the code out enough and >>>>>> makes it "less intimidating" to those in the community that would like >>>>>> to approach it and contribute. Then have one distro that's "headless" >>>>>> with the option of using whatever console one wanted, including quick >>>>>> drop in of the old console. Could even distribute a script that goes >>>>>> out, d/l the old console and installs it on demand as one sees fit (as >>>>>> james mentioned). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Timothy Bish <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On 01/06/2014 03:06 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think the old web console should be moved into a sub-project of >>>>>>>> ActiveMQ. >>>>>>>> Other ASF projects like Felix [1], Karaf [2], etc does this with their >>>>>>>> web-consoles. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That may also make it easier for people to contribute to the >>>>>>>> web-console as a sub-project if there codebase is smaller, and not >>>>>>>> contains the entire ActiveMQ source code. That may spark a little more >>>>>>>> life into the old web-console so people can help maintain it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the standalone ActiveMQ distribution, then installing the old web >>>>>>>> console should be an easy step, such as unzipping a .zip file, or >>>>>>>> copying a .war / .jar or something to a directory, and allowing to >>>>>>>> editing a configuration file to configure the console (port / context >>>>>>>> path / or other configurations). Then other 3rd party consoles could >>>>>>>> have the *same* installation procedure, so there is even >>>>>>>> playing-field. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the embedded ActiveMQ distribution for SMX/Karaf users, its >>>>>>>> already easy to install the console, as its just like any other >>>>>>>> installation using a feature. This is the same for other 3rd party >>>>>>>> consoles, and thus there is already an even playing field. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] - >>>>>>>> >>>>> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-web-console.html >>>>>>>> [2] - http://karaf.apache.org/index/subprojects/webconsole.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Robert Davies <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The old/original console is no longer fit for purpose, it is hard to >>>>>>>>> maintain, the source of a lot of security issues [1] over the last few >>>>>>>>> years. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is another thread about using hawtio as the console going >>>>> forward, >>>>>>>>> and without going into all the gory details it is probably likely >>>>> that there >>>>>>>>> may be no web console shipped at all in future releases of ActiveMQ. >>>>> The JMX >>>>>>>>> naming hierarchy was improved for ActiveMQ 5.8, such that its easy to >>>>> view >>>>>>>>> the running status of an ActiveMQ broker from 3rd party tools such as >>>>>>>>> jconsole, visualvm or hawtio. Regardless of the outcome of the other >>>>>>>>> discussion [2] - It doesn’t help the ActiveMQ project to try and >>>>> maintain a >>>>>>>>> static web console any more. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I propose we remove the old web console from the ActiveMQ 5.10 >>>>> release - >>>>>>>>> thoughts ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2714?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQ%20AND%20text%20~%20%22XSS%22 >>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>> >>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Default-Web-Console-td4675705.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rob Davies >>>>>>>>> ———————— >>>>>>>>> Red Hat, Inc >>>>>>>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha >>>>>>>>> Twitter: rajdavies >>>>>>>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com >>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The old console has been a continuous source of bugs and there's not >>>>> been >>>>>>> much community involvement in maintaining it so it'd be much better to >>>>> just >>>>>>> remove from the mainline and provide a way for those who really want to >>>>>>> contribute to do so without shipping out something that's not as >>>>> polished in >>>>>>> the main distribution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Tim Bish >>>>>>> Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc. >>>>>>> [email protected] | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com >>>>>>> skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121 >>>>>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Christian Posta >>>>>> http://www.christianposta.com/blog >>>>>> twitter: @christianposta >>>>> >>>>> Rob Davies >>>>> ———————— >>>>> Red Hat, Inc >>>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha >>>>> Twitter: rajdavies >>>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com >>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Hiram Chirino >>> >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. >>> >>> [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com >>> >>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino >>> >>> blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo > > -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
