Skip to content

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

Closed
asaxena14 wants to merge 3 commits intoapache:mainfrom
asaxena14:tik1699
Closed

AMQ-9857: Support broker-level SSL fallback in ManagementContext to eliminate duplicate SSL configuration#1710
asaxena14 wants to merge 3 commits intoapache:mainfrom
asaxena14:tik1699

Conversation

@asaxena14
Copy link

No description provided.

@asaxena14 asaxena14 marked this pull request as ready for review February 23, 2026 11:54
@jeanouii
Copy link
Contributor

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

@asaxena14
Copy link
Author

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

@jeanouii
Copy link
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
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
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
Author

@asaxena14 asaxena14 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.

@asaxena14 asaxena14 closed this Feb 23, 2026
@asaxena14
Copy link
Author

This is already covered by PR #1661.

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