Phoenix >= 1.3 umbrella architecture

Phoenix 1.3 also includes two new project generators for running inside an umbrella’s apps/ directory: mix phx.new.web and mix phx.new.ecto. So in your example, you could use the --umbrella flag, then generate your api, api_web, and other apps with these two generates. I think we already support what you suggested Glad you like the direction!

Wow, this is great stuff! Keep up the good job

@chrismccord is it possible to run, let’s say “app_web” and “app_api” in the same port? Perhaps using a proxy? How can one achieve this, any example?

Thanks in advance.

I stumbled on this github repo which has an example of what I’m trying to achieve, using the master_proxy app.

Is that example suitable for development? I mean will it have any negative impact, such as loss of live reloading or anything else?

Because I’d have to run it like: (right?)

cd apps/master_proxy && MIX_ENV=dev mix run --no-halt`

Thanks once more!

I wrote the master_proxy application originally to solve an issue with running an umbrella application on Heroku, where only one port is available.

What you have suggested would work, however I find it much easier to run mix phoenix.server from the route of the umbrella and have both applications running on different ports. So I can go to http://localhost:4000 for the API, and http://localhost:5000 for the web application.

Thanks for the quick answer @Gazler!

In that case, to separate web and API, I think you’re right, and it’s more practical as it will probably run in a sub-domain (each app proxied by NGINX).

But imagine I have, let’s say, the web (application per se) and admin, which I’d like to separate in code, but to run on same port.

I’ve achieved this behavior by creating a mix phx.new myapp_admin --module MyApp.Admin application in /apps directory, removing the mod param from applications function in myapp_admin/mix.exs, adding this as a dependency of myapp_web and then forward "/admin" MyApp.Admin.Router.

However with this “solution” I’ve lost live reloading for the myapp_admin code and assets compilation…

Three questions, if you don’t mind:

1. Do you think this is a good solution for this problem?
2. How could I restore live reloading and assets compilation with this solution?
3. For this specific case, are there better solutions?

Thank you in advance!

Well, I was able to make live reloading and assets compilation work again for the myapp_admin app, buy updating the following files in the myapp_web app:

File: myapp_web/config/dev.exs

...

config :myapp_web, MyApp.Web.Endpoint,
  watchers: [
    node: ["node_modules/brunch/bin/brunch", "watch", "--stdin", cd: Path.expand("../assets", __DIR__)], # watch myapp_web
    node: ["node_modules/brunch/bin/brunch", "watch", "--stdin", cd: Path.expand("../../myapp_admin/assets", __DIR__)] # watch myapp_admin
  ]

...

config :myapp_web, MyApp.Web.Endpoint,
  live_reload: [
    patterns: [
      # myapp_web
      ~r{priv/static/.*(js|css|png|jpeg|jpg|gif|svg)$},
      ~r{priv/gettext/.*(po)$},                                                                                            
      ~r{lib/myapp_web/views/.*(ex)$},                                                                      
      ~r{lib/myapp_web/templates/.*(eex)$},

      # myapp_admin
      ~r{priv/static/.*(js|css|png|jpeg|jpg|gif|svg)$},
      ~r{priv/gettext/.*(po)$},                                                                                            
      ~r{lib/myapp_admin/views/.*(ex)$},                                                                      
      ~r{lib/myapp_admin/templates/.*(eex)$},
    ]
  ]

File: myapp_web/lib/myapp_web/endpoint.ex

...

  # myapp_web
  plug Plug.Static,
    at: "/", from: :myapp_web, gzip:false,
    only: ~w(css fonts images js favicon.ico robots.txt)

  # myapp_admin
  plug Plug.Static,
    at: "/", from: :myapp_admin, gzip:false,
    only: ~w(css fonts images js favicon.ico robots.txt)

...

Ofc, this doesn’t look like a very elegant solution, but it works!!

I was wondering if there’s another way to work this out or improve this solution… Any ideas?

Thank you very much!

I can see why you would want them running on the same port in production (with some sort of proxy in front of them). I’m not sure why you would want to do it in development. If there is some reason that they need to exist together then they may not be good candidates for separating into different apps.

You an always run them both on separate ports to allow you to run mix phoenix.server from the root for the code reloading. Then you can forward as you have done already and just ignore the fact that the admin section is running on a different port. This means that you don’t need a work around like you have, but you can also run both applications in isolation.

If you look at the Phoenix supervisor, you will see that both the watcher_children (for code reloading) and server_children workers use the same server?/1 function to see if they should be started phoenix/lib/phoenix/endpoint/supervisor.ex at 4ff5a3e21ed8e1ca892e3bb60d3511d4cf8a2a1b · phoenixframework/phoenix · GitHub

All of this comes from the will to separate code as much as possible so that I don’t end up with a monolithic application. That’s why I want backoffice and frontoffice code to live in two separate “apps” or “directories”, as I would if I was to add an API to this project as well.

I now see that it really doesn’t matter if apps are running on different ports as long as I forward the app-sepcific path to correspondent router. I believe that approach will work well instead of the messy workaround I previously had in place.

However, when using that approach, as I’m calling the App.Backoffice.Router instead of calling it’s App.Backoffice.Endpoint, assets won’t be available if I’m accessing it through the forward. I mean, in development I’ll access localhost:4001 for developing the backoffice and I can access the assets. But in production it won’t be able to reach the assets, right? (at least this is what I’m experiencing right now)…

I don’t believe there is any reason that they need to exist together unless (I haven’t tried this yet) regarding authentication… Given this case where I separate both frontoffice and backoffice, given your experience, do you anticipate any issue with having authentication setup in both apps? As they’ll eventually have separated code for serialization and authentication it shouldn’t be a problem, right? But in the session-level do you think they could collide or something?

Sorry for all the questions! Thanks!

Hi,

Is it possible to add to Deploying on Heroku — Phoenix v1.8.8, a chapter about master proxy ?

My app has multiple phoenix app (scaffolded from phoenix 1.3 / different PORT) under the same umbrella and everything work in dev. And because I have to use heroku, a master_proxy is needed.

I have found using this forum the following gists: Websockets in Elixir with Cowboy and Plug · GitHub and Example MasterProxy for Elixir Umbrella applications supporting websockets · GitHub

But something more official/easy to find would be cool (one working with websocket).

Thanks