default to port 80 for exposed service ports for targetPort 8080? about fabric8-maven-plugin HOT 16 CLOSED

Currently this is hard coded, but ideally we would expect the application.properties for and the spring boot dependencies for the targetPort.

The service port is also hard coded to be == targetPort, but I agree that probably doesnt make much sense. Guess we can go for 80 (or make some simple heuristic mappings like '8080' --> '80', '8443' --> '443' etc.).

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

agreed. I like the idea of the defaults being something like '8080' --> '80', '8443' --> '443'

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

👍 to 80/443 mappings. Important for simple, clean URLs.

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

i'll take that. The idea is to have a static default mapping like

8080 -> 80
8081 -> 80
8181 -> 80
8443 -> 443
....

This would be used if a port is autodetected via a Enricher as an Docker image exposed port and used when it creates a default service. To override this the user then can either add a service definition directly so that no default service gets created or uses a configuration for the enricher when creating the default object:

<customizer>
   <default.service.port.8080>81</default.service.port>
</customizer>

The hope is, that the amount of configuration for Enrichers (those who either create k8s default resources or enrich labels and annotations) and Customizers (those who auto-create images based on detected maven dependencies) is kept small.

Anything more complicated should go either in the plugin configuration (which has an XML schema) or into external Docker and YAML files (the alternative way to configure stuff).

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

BTW I think I fixed this for 80/8080 - but didn't add the configurable mapping file

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any activity since 90 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 7 days. Thank you for your contributions!

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

I still think that might be a valuable addition. I.e. to tune the default service enricher that it kind of normalizes the access to the pods behind to well known and accepted ports.

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any activity since 90 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 7 days. Thank you for your contributions!

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any activity since 90 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 7 days. Thank you for your contributions!

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

@rohanKanojia @dev-gaur Anything you like to pick up ? Should be a quick win and helpful for edge cases.

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

@rhuss On it

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

@rhuss what if the user doesn't want to normalize their port mappings on purpose ?

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

Should I add a normalizePorts property for xml configuration ?

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

@rohanKanojia @lordofthejars thoughts ?

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

@rhuss what if the user doesn't want to normalize their port mappings on purpose ?

I think then he should configure the port mappings explicitly and don't use the enricher.

from fabric8-maven-plugin.

in general, enricher should carry as little configuration as needed, delegating for more advanced configuration options to XML/fragments. Enrichers are expressing our opinionated way to do things, a single enricher not a swiss army knife.

from fabric8-maven-plugin.