--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quarkus Development mailing list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to quarkus-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/quarkus-dev/CAD%2BL2cxmavBZDaDdyh%3DVf5YZ%3DtjK8dy4rnQaSddeT8FrqS7WPw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/quarkus-dev/CALeTM-%3DgUT5-Yf6y%3D%3D1cCwj9pPuur9Bv%2BKXWjkgZA2hfvwEESQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quarkus Development mailing list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to quarkus-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/quarkus-dev/CAD%2BL2cxmavBZDaDdyh%3DVf5YZ%3DtjK8dy4rnQaSddeT8FrqS7WPw%40mail.gmail.com.
this is cool for sure and I can see interesting thing to do by controlling the JVM debug channel...BUT it exposes debug facility to the public internet; thus from a security perspective even worse afaics. Would a port forward not be sufficient?
Would it not be more appropriate when we connect to a kubernetes cluster we in the kubernetes/openshift extension send the proper kubectl/oc commands (using kubernetes client if possible) to do a port forward instead ?
That would of course not make it work for non-kubernetes scenario but at least would not be opening debugging port to public internet ?
/max
this is cool for sure and I can see interesting thing to do by controlling the JVM debug channel...BUT it exposes debug facility to the public internet; thus from a security perspective even worse afaics. Would a port forward not be sufficient?