Hi All, The idea of moving the UI to the main repo SGTM.
I tend to agree with Romain, that the UI should be easy to _disable_ because in production environments it may not be intended to run at all, or perhaps not on the same nodes as the main Polaris server. The simplicity of the UI (static pages + REST API via JS) may not justify always running it from the SRE perspective, I guess. I'm sure there are multiple ways to tackle this in helm. For a start, a simple on/off helm value might be sufficient, though. Regarding defaults, how about ON by default in plain docker (for local runs), but OFF by default in helm (mostly for "prod" environments)? Cheers, Dmitri. On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 11:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > Le lun. 1 juin 2026 à 17:35, Robert Stupp <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > But isn't the concern solved with the configuration option "enable web > UI = > > true|false"? > > > > if default is false it does but breaks the easy by default no? > > > > > > 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`. > > > > yes but it is less tempting enough to be sufficient for me > > > > > > With that, I'm not sure maintaining multiple different distributions > really > > helps lock people out of web UIs ("click-ops"). > > > > from my windows integrating the ui is not helping since you need the > database anyway so maybe the ui outside is sufficient too else the all in > one with h2 or pg will help, i'm not clear on it > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
