Skip to content

AMQ-9857: Support broker-level SSL fallback in ManagementContext to eliminate duplicate SSL configuration#1710

Closed
anmol-saxena-14 wants to merge 3 commits intoapache:mainfrom
anmol-saxena-14:tik1699
Closed

AMQ-9857: Support broker-level SSL fallback in ManagementContext to eliminate duplicate SSL configuration#1710
anmol-saxena-14 wants to merge 3 commits intoapache:mainfrom
anmol-saxena-14:tik1699

Conversation

@anmol-saxena-14
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No description provided.

@jeanouii
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hi,
Thanks for the contribution.
I do have already #1661 to cover this. Maybe I missed something?

@anmol-saxena-14
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hi,
I have added a comment on the issue, Can you please check.
#1699 (comment)
Thanks

@jeanouii
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

jeanouii commented Feb 23, 2026

@asaxena14 So, if I understand, we need to somehow merge our 2 PRs, right?
Or is it better to keep only one of the 2?

// Reuse the broker-level SSL context for JMX by default
// This avoids duplicating SSL config in activemq.xml while still allowing an
// explicit managementContext sslContext to override when one is needed
if (getManagementContext().getSslContext() == null && getSslContext() != null) {
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is a logic flaw here-- just b/c an SslContext exists on the broker, does not mean the intent is to wire it to the management context.

If there is a fallback option, there most likely will need to be a config flag on the managementContext to affirm that ssl should be enabled.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@mattrpav right this was the option I used in my PR #1661

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@anmol-saxena-14 anmol-saxena-14 Feb 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree, the PR #1661 already supports explicit wiring via: " ". Adding a fallback code, guarded by an explicit flag, does not seem necessary and would add complexity without clear benefit.

@anmol-saxena-14
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

This is already covered by PR #1661.

@anmol-saxena-14 anmol-saxena-14 deleted the tik1699 branch March 26, 2026 05:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants