Le lun. 1 juin 2026 à 17:12, Robert Stupp <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Hi Romain, > > Disabling the console (web UI) is easy once it becomes part of the > polaris-server. > > To clarify, the web UI is a static web resource, it doesn't execute web-UI > code in Quarkus. > The UI uses the same authentication and authorization mechanisms that any > REST client uses; it is just a UI on top of that. > Yep, this is my issue, it is trivial to use and break the "all as code" pattern and get back to click-ops pattern. Being API only is less tempting so I'm trying to stick to that. *Still thinking out loud* but having 3 images sounds the best of all worlds: * server * frontend/ui * all-in-one (== demo) It is the pattern used by most products (all in one can even embed postgres to really be ready to use) and everybody will be happy at a very low cost in terms of dev/maintenance and infra IMHO. Hope it makes sense. > > Hope this helps, > > Robert > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 4:33 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >
