Using Caddy for Other Services not started by ShinyProxy Operator Docker

[k----n]

What's the best way to configure the Caddy service started by ShinyProxy Operator Docker to reverse proxy to other services not started by ShinyProxy Operator Docker?

[k----n]

It looks like there's ways to generate redirects in Caddy but not reverse proxies:

shinyproxy-operator/src/main/kotlin/eu/openanalytics/shinyproxyoperator/impl/docker/CaddyConfig.kt

Line 165 in c1799bf

private fun generateRedirects(shinyProxy: ShinyProxy): List<Map<String, Any>> {

It would be a useful configuration option to enable reverse proxying to other services on the machine.

[LEDfan]

Hi

Thanks for the feature request! I understand this is useful, and in principle it is possible to add this as a feature.
With the operator we try to make things as easy as possible, therefore we must make sure such a feature does not conflict with the operator itself. For example, the generated caddy config has a specific structure in order to support the different features.

It could make sense to limit this feature to only allow adding proxies for additional sub-paths and only for domains configured in the ShinyProxy config. Would this be sufficient for your use case?

[k----n]

Ideally it should support other domains, outside of the ShinyProxy config, since Caddy binds to the web ports (80,443).

Additional sub-paths and only for domains configured in the ShinyProxy config would be a good start.

[LEDfan]

Hi @k----n

I explored this a bit, and I believe that it will be difficult to allow hosting other apps in the same proxy. The operator must be able to make some assumptions about the caddy config. I expect that if users are able to customize the config, the operator could be less stable and users will run into issues.

However, we do plan to allow to change the ports used by Caddy. This should allow you to run you regular reverse proxy on port 80 and 443, and only forward the paths of ShinyProxy to the Caddy.
There is of course the downside of an additional proxy, but performance wise this should not be a big deal.

Would this work for you?

[k----n]

Yes, that would work. Thanks for looking into this!