A hosting operator asked for the one thing the catalog does not have: an application that runs an arbitrary container image. Their customers frequently need nothing more than "run this one thing in Docker", sometimes with a web server in front and a database next to it. The closest path today is packaging it as an external app, a chart plus an ApplicationDefinition, which is the right mechanism for someone shipping a product and far too much ceremony for a customer who wants one image online.
The request arrived with a concrete field list, which is what makes it worth filing rather than debating in the abstract:
- container image, with command and entrypoint overrides
- ports
- volumes
- replica count
- the network it attaches to
Two of those need a decision rather than a straight implementation. Volumes: the reporter assumed they would bind to a VMDisk, but for a containerised workload these are PVCs with a storage class, and the form should say so in its own vocabulary instead of borrowing the VM one. Network: a tenant workload already sits on the tenant network, so the real question is how it gets published, through an Ingress or HTTPRoute or a LoadBalancer service, and that is what the form should ask.
Worth being explicit about the scope, because the thread started wider: this is not compose support. The field list above describes a single workload, and that is a much smaller thing to build and to keep supported than a compose translator.
Requested here: https://t.me/cozystack_ru/12305
A hosting operator asked for the one thing the catalog does not have: an application that runs an arbitrary container image. Their customers frequently need nothing more than "run this one thing in Docker", sometimes with a web server in front and a database next to it. The closest path today is packaging it as an external app, a chart plus an ApplicationDefinition, which is the right mechanism for someone shipping a product and far too much ceremony for a customer who wants one image online.
The request arrived with a concrete field list, which is what makes it worth filing rather than debating in the abstract:
Two of those need a decision rather than a straight implementation. Volumes: the reporter assumed they would bind to a VMDisk, but for a containerised workload these are PVCs with a storage class, and the form should say so in its own vocabulary instead of borrowing the VM one. Network: a tenant workload already sits on the tenant network, so the real question is how it gets published, through an Ingress or HTTPRoute or a LoadBalancer service, and that is what the form should ask.
Worth being explicit about the scope, because the thread started wider: this is not compose support. The field list above describes a single workload, and that is a much smaller thing to build and to keep supported than a compose translator.
Requested here: https://t.me/cozystack_ru/12305