On Jan 17, 2014, at 4:32 AM, Robert Davies <[email protected]> wrote:
> This discussion has been open a while - not exactly consensus but then > there’s not really much difference either. There does seem to be general > consensus amongst the poor folks who actually maintain the old console (me > included) it should die quickly, but I think we should keep it around > optionally for those users who can’t use anything else?. > We have to get this resolved quickly - so I’ll start a vote and hope to gain > some consensus, at least within the PMC. Not sure what a vote would accomplish that this discussion hasn’t already shown. It looks to me like there is consensus to move the console to a sub project thing (I suppose a vote on that might make sense to verify), but it also looks like there is at least one PMC member that feels there needs to be a distribution similar to what you have today that includes it. I’m not sure a vote would change that (but I could be wrong). Remember, Apache communities are NOT democracies, they are consensus driven communities. Votes should be used just to test/verify consensus. (other than release votes, they are different) If a consensus cannot be achieved, then status quo remains. In other words, if you cannot find the common ground that everyone CAN agree on, then nothing will change and what you have today remains. Just keep that in mind. Pushing hard for things that are highly unlikely to obtain consensus will just result in heated and unpleasant arguments which can harm the community. Dan > > thanks, > > Rob > On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:21, Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think the web-console should die, letting it rot in a subproject >> will not make it more secure,usable nor maintainable. >> >> Then we either - >> 1) skin hawtio with an Apache ActiveMQ brand and continue to ship it >> 2) document the extension points for third party consoles. >> >> I think dropping needs to be contingent on either 1 or 2. >> >> Imho, hawtio does it right with the jolokia jmx/http bridge and has >> some nice extension points so I am in favour of 1 >> >> On 2 January 2014 09:59, 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/ >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> http://redhat.com >> http://blog.garytully.com > > Rob Davies > ———————— > Red Hat, Inc > http://hawt.io - #dontcha > Twitter: rajdavies > Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com > ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
