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 >
