Skip to content

Docker #63

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Mar 6, 2016
Merged

Docker #63

merged 5 commits into from
Mar 6, 2016

Conversation

timchunght
Copy link
Contributor

Added runnable Dockerfile and updated README with instructions on how to use parse-dashboard with Docker

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link

By analyzing the blame information on this pull request, we identified @drew-gross, @flovilmart and @peterdotjs to be potential reviewers.

@drew-gross
Copy link
Contributor

Is it possible to remove the --allowInsecureHTTP=1 by default? It's incredibly important to disallow insecure connections by default because accessing the dashboard on the public internet via HTTP will leak all your master keys.

@timchunght
Copy link
Contributor Author

@drew-gross The --allowInsecureHTTP is not enabled by default. npm run dashboard is the default command for the image.

@timchunght
Copy link
Contributor Author

@drew-gross I just updated the README with explanation that the custom command without HTTPS is only used for test/development purposes using Docker. Thank you for your good work with the dashboard. I am curious why you guys didn't open source the Go version of the API.

@flovilmart
Copy link
Contributor

@timchunght the npm run dashboard is also watching the files locally which is fine for development, but not recommended for production.

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link

@timchunght updated the pull request.

@timchunght
Copy link
Contributor Author

@flovilmart I just updated the Dockerfile to use an ENTRYPOINT of the production command and it will allow custom configurations to be passed in.

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link

@timchunght updated the pull request.

@timchunght
Copy link
Contributor Author

@drew-gross @flovilmart I also think it could be better if we have the option to build the webpack in a separate command from starting the server. This way, we can have faster start time. Please advise on what you think is the best way to achieve that. From reading the *.build.js files, it appears that the webpack build script doesn't have explicit dependency on the parse-dashboard-config, which is the only external variable. Thanks.

@flovilmart
Copy link
Contributor

@timchunght I'm actually working onto just that :)

@timchunght
Copy link
Contributor Author

@flovilmart That's brilliant! I am happy that we are on the same page. Haha. I really like the Parse project. I personally really like Go and built a compatible Go version This. It is just the binary file to let some of friends test it out without setting up Go environment. It is still very early and I will open source it when it is more ready.

I am wondering why didn't you guys open source the Go version of the API.

@flovilmart
Copy link
Contributor

Easier to deploy with node.js, more integrated with cloud code, no subprocesses to manage I believe :)

@timchunght
Copy link
Contributor Author

@flovilmart I see. That's a shame that Go version isn't open source. Haha. I think Go is easier to deploy (could be biased). Regardless, these (server and dashboard) are great projects and it has been fun to work on them. @drew-gross I hope my docker contribution is useful. Thanks.

@drew-gross
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah, the go version is massively multi-tenant and includes tons of multi-tenant specific code. It also relies on like 6 different databases, takes 2-3 days to get it running, and would be unlikely to fit in the smallest tier on any IaaS provider. I wouldn't have been a good experience. Thanks for the Docker contribution!

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.

4 participants