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?
>
