But isn't the concern solved with the configuration option "enable web UI =
true|false"?
With a standalone web UI, as it exists today, everybody can run it and
perform "click-ops."
Similar for custom built web UIs.
Or if some user extracts the static files and serves their own instance
using a local http daemon.
The web UI doesn't allow anything that cannot be done via another
interface, such as a terminal and `curl`.
With that, I'm not sure maintaining multiple different distributions really
helps lock people out of web UIs ("click-ops").
Robert
On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 5:15 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
