[enhancement] Version only php-fpm, without nginx and supervisord

[f-andrey]

Hello, are you have plans make version without nginx and supervisord?

Nginx with default config only creates excessive load, much better to add separate nginx-proxy (docker-compose or host-based).

supervisord need only for run nginx?

[nijel]

AFAIK there is no way to serve static files with php-fpm, so how that would work?

[f-andrey]

If i'm understand php-fpm work with static files not optimal, but still working.

In docker-compose.yml make 2 service phpmyadmin and nginx-proxy (standard nginx docker image).
Export static files in volume, run nginx-proxy separate docker/host.

[nijel]

I really don't see much benefit in splitting the setup into two containers....

[f-andrey]

This will use your project as part of a more complex, where there is already a proxy or use another proxy (apache, lighttpd ...). Without significant changes, as well as eliminating the unnecessary processes supervisord.

[nijel]

But on the other side this will make it more complex for users who want just to have phpMyAdmin installed with minimal additional effort...

[f-andrey]

make complex docker-compose.yml this makes it easy to run and modify project. Without that reuse this project is meaningless, it is easier to write another :(

[nijel]

I would really use another opinion here as well. Remembering some recent issues and commenters there, maybe @chrisburrell, @nsymms, @ssteinerx or @CybotTM can share opinion on this - whether phpMyAdmin should be all in one container or split to PHP + nginx containers?

[nsymms]

It is my belief that containers should be stand-alone. That is, everything is included. Removing nginx from the phpMyAdmin container would, in my opinion, negate the purpose of this container. I mean, why not just distribute a tar file instead of a docker container?

We've already seen that php does NOT function well as a web server for this project. and even @f-andrey admits that it would not be optimal. If you think there are problems with the included nginx config, then propose some changes.

[ssteinerx]

@f-andrey

Without that reuse this project is meaningless, it is easier to write another :(

Then just go do that and publish your own. Coming here just to complain when your assertion is that you can do it more easily on your own is not productive. Just think, in they time you've spent complaining, you'd almost be done!

[ssteinerx]

@nsymms -- agreed, if the nginx config is sub-optimal, propose changes, don't just complain that it's sub-optimal.

[ssteinerx]

@nijel Putting it into separate containers might be nice from a purist's standpoint but really, this thing is so tiny, self-contained, and single-purpose that having Nginx tightly coupled within the image is much more convenient.

Everything on Earth doesn't have to be in a separate container -- do you really want to have to modify your load balancer to use this image, or do you just want to administer your database?

Bikeshedding this to death is completely counter-productive. If your religion prevents you from using this as-is, then don't; go make your own, it's OPEN SOURCE.

That said, if someone knows of performance tweaks to Nginx that could make this better, submit a patch with benchmarks that show that it's really an improvement.

[chrisburrell]

A single container is much better in my opinion. The beauty of how it is now is that i can just deploy it and it works.

I was able to lift it off the shelf, slide next to all our other services and hey presto.

Introducing something like docker compose and 2 containers only works for those who are using docker compose. We re not, we use AWS ECS so we d have to rewrite compose files. And for people who are using other systems they ll need to do the same.

As is, is great. The idea of public containers is surely to make it as easy to use as possible so I love what you ve done and it saved us hours for someone who hasn't used PMA much but just wants a UI.

[nijel]

Sorry @f-andrey, but nobody seems to support such change....

[J0WI]

How about using tags to support multiple variants?
Most 'official' php application containers support an apache and a fpm variant.
That may also solve #66 and #107 btw.

AFAIK this is required to solve #56 (see "Best practices" section in https://github.com/docker-library/official-images#contributing-to-the-standard-library and https://docs.docker.com/engine/userguide/eng-image/dockerfile_best-practices/#each-container-should-have-only-one-concern).

[nijel]

Honestly I don't see much benefits in this and we don't seem to have much manpower for improving Docker images, so I don't think we're going to implement this ourselves. Pull requests implementing this might be accepted given that all images are covered by automated tests and there is not much additional maintenance burden.