Closed nj0yeh closed 4 years ago
Yep, this makes sense.
This looks a bit verbose:
- name: web
dockerImage: davidfowl/web
bindings:
- port: 5000
- name: api
dockerImage: davidfowl/api
replicas: 2
bindings:
- port: 5001
internalPort: 80
I could support the docker style syntax.
- name: web
dockerImage: davidfowl/web
bindings:
- port: 5000
- name: api
dockerImage: davidfowl/api
replicas: 2
bindings:
- port: "5001:80"
Since the internalPort is optional, I would vote for the first one for readability.
Please add the possibility to specify an internal and an external port for Docker containers. We run multiple MySQL Docker containers (that all listen to port 3306) and want to expose them to different external ports.
You can achieve this by replacing the second port in
$"-p {p.Port}:{p.Port}"
with the internal port.