Single Port Multi-Proxy With Stacks.js RPX

by Admin 43 views
Single Port Multi-Proxy with Stacks.js RPX

Hey guys! Today, we're diving deep into an interesting problem and a potential solution using Stacks.js RPX. The core issue? Managing multiple proxies without cluttering your setup with different ports for each. Let's break it down and see how we can make our lives as developers a little easier.

The Problem: Multiple Ports for Multiple Proxies

As developers, we often find ourselves needing to access different proxied paths or subdomains. Currently, @stacksjs/rpx spins up separate listeners on different ports for each proxy. Imagine the scenario:

import startProxies, { MultiProxyConfig } from "@stacksjs/rpx";

const config: MultiProxyConfig = {
 https: true,
 cleanup: {
 hosts: true,
 certs: true,
 },
 cleanUrls: false,
 vitePluginUsage: false,

 proxies: [
 {
 from: "localhost:3000",
 to: "foo.myservice.local",
 cleanUrls: true,
 },
 {
 from: "localhost:3001",
 to: "myservice.local/bar",
 cleanUrls: false,
 },
 {
 from: "localhost:3003",
 to: "*.myservice.local",
 cleanUrls: true,
 },
 ],

 verbose: false,
};

startProxies(config);

This configuration, while functional, leads to the creation of multiple servers listening on various ports. Check out the output:

rpx v0.10.0

 ➜  localhost:3000 ➜ https://foo.myservice.local
 ➜  SSL enabled with:
 - TLS 1.2/1.3
 - Modern cipher suite
 - HTTP/2 enabled
 - HSTS enabled

WARN  Port 80 is in use, HTTP to HTTPS redirect will not be available                                                                                                                   10:25:39 PM


WARN  Port 443 is in use. Using port 8443 instead.                                                                                                                                      10:25:39 PM

ℹ You can use 'sudo lsof -i :443' (Unix) or 'netstat -ano | findstr :443' (Windows) to check what's using the port.                                                                     10:25:39 PM

rpx v0.10.0

 ➜  localhost:3001 ➜ https://myservice.local
 ➜  Listening on port 8443
 ➜  SSL enabled with:
 - TLS 1.2/1.3
 - Modern cipher suite
 - HTTP/2 enabled
 - HSTS enabled

WARN  Port 80 is in use, HTTP to HTTPS redirect will not be available                                                                                                                   10:25:39 PM


WARN  Port 443 is in use. Using port 8444 instead.                                                                                                                                      10:25:39 PM

ℹ You can use 'sudo lsof -i :443' (Unix) or 'netstat -ano | findstr :443' (Windows) to check what's using the port.                                                                     10:25:39 PM

rpx v0.10.0

 ➜  localhost:3003 ➜ *.myservice.local"
 ➜  Listening on port 8444
 ➜  SSL enabled with:
 - TLS 1.2/1.3
 - Modern cipher suite
 - HTTP/2 enabled
 - HSTS enabled

As you can see, this setup creates multiple servers listening on ports 80, 443, 8443, and 8444. This can quickly become cumbersome and hard to manage, especially when dealing with numerous proxies.

So, why is this a problem? Well, for starters, it's messy. Managing multiple ports can be a headache, especially when you're juggling several projects or services. It also makes the configuration more complex and harder to debug. Imagine having to keep track of dozens of different ports – not fun, right? We need a cleaner, more streamlined approach.

The core of the problem lies in the fact that each proxy configuration spins up a new server instance. This not only consumes more resources but also adds unnecessary complexity to the setup. What if we could consolidate all these proxies into a single server, routing traffic based on the incoming request's hostname or path? That's where the idea of a singlePortMode comes in.

The Suggested Solution: singlePortMode

The proposed solution is to introduce a singlePortMode parameter. This parameter would enable a single server instance to handle all proxy requests, listening on a configurable port (defaulting to 80 and 443). The server would then intelligently route traffic based on the from parameter patterns defined in the proxy configurations. This approach would greatly simplify the setup and reduce resource consumption.

How would this work in practice? Instead of creating multiple listeners, the singlePortMode would create a single listener that inspects the incoming request's headers (like the Host header) or URL path to determine which proxy configuration to apply. This is a common pattern in reverse proxies and load balancers, allowing for efficient routing of traffic based on domain names or URL structures.

To illustrate, let's consider how this might look in the configuration:

const config: MultiProxyConfig = {
 https: true,
 cleanup: {
 hosts: true,
 certs: true,
 },
 cleanUrls: false,
 vitePluginUsage: false,
 singlePortMode: true, // Enable single port mode
 port: 443, // Configure the port (optional, defaults to 80 and 443)

 proxies: [
 {
 from: "localhost:3000",
 to: "foo.myservice.local",
 cleanUrls: true,
 },
 {
 from: "localhost:3001",
 to: "myservice.local/bar",
 cleanUrls: false,
 },
 {
 from: "localhost:3003",
 to: "*.myservice.local",
 cleanUrls: true,
 },
 ],

 verbose: false,
};

startProxies(config);

With singlePortMode enabled, RPX would start a single server on port 443 (or 80 if HTTPS is not enabled) and handle all proxy requests based on the from patterns. This significantly cleans up the output and reduces the complexity of managing multiple ports.

Benefits of singlePortMode

  • Simplified Configuration: No more juggling multiple ports. A single port configuration makes the setup cleaner and easier to understand.
  • Reduced Resource Consumption: Running a single server instance consumes fewer resources compared to multiple instances.
  • Improved Manageability: Easier to monitor and manage a single server compared to multiple servers.
  • Scalability: A single entry point can simplify scaling and load balancing in more complex deployments.

The singlePortMode aligns with best practices for reverse proxies and load balancers, providing a more efficient and scalable solution for managing multiple proxies. It simplifies the developer experience by reducing the complexity of port management and resource allocation.

Diving Deeper: How to Implement singlePortMode

So, how would we actually implement this singlePortMode? Let's break down the key steps and considerations for bringing this feature to life.

First and foremost, we need to modify the core logic of @stacksjs/rpx to handle traffic routing within a single server instance. Instead of creating separate listeners for each proxy, we'll create a single listener that acts as a central hub for all incoming requests. This listener will then inspect the request and determine the appropriate proxy configuration based on the from parameter.

The key to this lies in the routing mechanism. We need a way to map incoming requests to their corresponding proxy targets. This can be achieved by examining the request's Host header or URL path. For instance, if a request comes in with the Host header foo.myservice.local, we can match it against the proxy configuration where from is set to localhost:3000 and to is foo.myservice.local. Similarly, if a request comes in for myservice.local/bar, we can match it against the configuration where from is localhost:3001 and to is myservice.local/bar.

To facilitate this routing, we can leverage popular Node.js libraries like http-proxy or node-http-proxy. These libraries provide powerful tools for creating reverse proxies and handling request routing. They allow us to intercept incoming requests, modify them if necessary, and then forward them to the appropriate backend server.

Here’s a simplified conceptual outline of the implementation:

  1. Create a single HTTP/HTTPS server: Instead of creating multiple servers, we'll create one server instance that listens on the configured port (defaulting to 80 and 443).
  2. Implement request routing: We'll add middleware that intercepts incoming requests and examines their headers (e.g., Host) or URL paths.
  3. Match requests to proxy configurations: Based on the request information, we'll match it against the from patterns defined in the proxy configurations.
  4. Forward requests to the target: Using a library like http-proxy, we'll forward the request to the appropriate backend server based on the matched proxy configuration.

Let's consider a simplified code snippet to illustrate this concept:

const http = require('http');
const httpProxy = require('http-proxy');

const proxy = httpProxy.createProxyServer({});

const proxies = [
 { from: 'localhost:3000', to: 'http://foo.myservice.local' },
 { from: 'localhost:3001', to: 'http://myservice.local/bar' },
];

const server = http.createServer((req, res) => {
 const targetProxy = proxies.find(p => req.headers.host === p.from);

 if (targetProxy) {
 proxy.web(req, res, { target: targetProxy.to }, (err) => {
 console.error('Proxy error:', err);
 res.statusCode = 500;
 res.end('Proxy error');
 });
 } else {
 res.statusCode = 404;
 res.end('Not Found');
 }
});

server.listen(80, () => {
 console.log('Server listening on port 80');
});

This is a highly simplified example, but it demonstrates the core idea of routing requests within a single server instance based on the Host header. In a real-world implementation, we would need to handle more complex routing scenarios, such as wildcard domains and URL path matching.

Key Considerations

  • Wildcard Domains: We need to support wildcard domains in the from patterns (e.g., *.myservice.local). This will require more sophisticated pattern matching logic.
  • URL Path Matching: Some proxies may need to be routed based on the URL path (e.g., myservice.local/bar). We'll need to implement path-based routing in addition to domain-based routing.
  • Error Handling: Proper error handling is crucial. We need to gracefully handle cases where a request doesn't match any proxy configuration or when a backend server is unavailable.
  • Performance: Performance is always a concern. We need to ensure that the routing logic is efficient and doesn't introduce significant overhead.

Implementing singlePortMode will require careful consideration of these factors. However, the benefits in terms of simplicity, resource efficiency, and manageability make it a worthwhile endeavor.

Alternatives Considered

While the singlePortMode solution seems like the most intuitive and efficient approach, it's always worth considering alternatives. However, in this case, no alternative solutions were explicitly proposed in the original discussion. This further reinforces the value and necessity of the singlePortMode suggestion.

Additional Context and Validations

In the original discussion, there wasn't any additional context provided beyond the problem description and the suggested solution. However, the validations confirm that the issue follows the project's Code of Conduct and Contributing Guide, and that there isn't already an existing issue requesting the same feature. This demonstrates a clear need for this functionality within the Stacks.js RPX ecosystem.

Final Thoughts

The singlePortMode proposal offers a significant improvement to the way Stacks.js RPX handles multiple proxies. By consolidating proxy configurations into a single server instance, we can simplify the setup, reduce resource consumption, and improve overall manageability. This feature aligns with best practices for reverse proxies and load balancers, making it a valuable addition to the Stacks.js RPX toolkit.

Implementing this feature will require careful attention to routing logic, wildcard domain support, URL path matching, error handling, and performance. However, the benefits far outweigh the challenges. The singlePortMode will undoubtedly make the lives of developers using Stacks.js RPX a whole lot easier.