> > 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.
More of a poll than a vote - and you haven’t seen what is says yet! > > Dan > > > >> >> thanks, >> >> Rob >> On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:21, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> 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 <rajdav...@gmail.com> 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 > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.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/
