Re: Proposal for supporting the application of multiple buildpacks to a CF app
|
Dubois, Jan <jan.dubois@...>
That is indeed true. All the use cases still assume a single main application process, and therefore a single start command, and owner of $PORT. Any additional processes are meant as helpers inside the container only (either short-lived subprocesses, or long-running sidecars).
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
If multiple app processes are required, is there a reason not to run them in separate containers? Cheers, -Jan From: John Liptak <john.h.liptak(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: "Discussions about Cloud Foundry projects and the system overall." <cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org> Date: Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 12:51 To: "Discussions about Cloud Foundry projects and the system overall." <cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org> Subject: [cf-dev] Re: Re: Proposal for supporting the application of multiple buildpacks to a CF app I don't see any consideration in the document for having multiple start commands and picking who gets the default PORT. On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:37 PM Stephen Levine <slevine(a)pivotal.io<mailto:slevine(a)pivotal.io>> wrote:
+ Pivotal PMs/Anchors for visibility On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Stephen Levine <slevine(a)pivotal.io<mailto:slevine(a)pivotal.io>> wrote: Hi All, The CF Buildpacks team and CAPI team are planning a coordinated effort to introduce support for applying multiple buildpacks during CF application staging. We would like to welcome any and all comments on our proposal[1] from the community before we begin this effort in a few weeks. A PDF is attached for those who have issues with Google Docs. Thanks! Stephen Levine CF Buildpacks PM [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YEzw_g1MRBzEOhSGNPVLHpyf2BGHqFITy38fsDnDBfI/edit?usp=sharing |
|
|