Hi, as an user I have a small request: can it be disabled by default (or made unusable by disabling the authn) or at least be made easy to disable (corrollar being: can we get a headless docker image, solves my concern too)? rational is that when you have everything automated around polaris you don't want the UI to be able to mess up things nor render a different view. not my usage but an in between readonly enforced mode - even for admin users - can be useful I think so maybe 3 modes in terms of toggle: Full, ReadOnly, Off or alike.
Shouldn't be crazy to do with quarkus but think it is an important feature to integrate it cleanly as a global solution. the tricky part is to make the prod and dev defaults converging but quarkus has a profile option by default which can be the way to solve it. hope it makes sense. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064> Javaccino founder (Java/.NET service - contact via linkedin) Le lun. 1 juin 2026 à 15:28, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi, > > Yes, that is indeed part of the proposal. > > The goal is to provide the UI as soon as the Polaris server starts to > ensure a better experience for our users. > > Regards, > JB > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 3:12 PM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > Could we then bundle the Console with the Polaris server? > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:01 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > As mentioned on the dev mailing list a few days ago, I am currently > > > preparing the first release of the Polaris Console. There is > > > significant interest in the Console, and it is a key component of our > > > efforts to improve the onboarding experience. > > > > > > After discussing this with Yong, who started to help with the console, > > > we believe that moving the Console into the main Polaris repository > > > would provide better visibility and encourage further contributions. > > > This would also allow it to be released as part of the main Polaris > > > release cycle. Additionally, the Console could be included as an > > > optional component in the main Helm chart, allowing users to choose > > > whether to enable it. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Regards, > > > JB > > > >
