Cloudron makes it easy to run web apps like WordPress, Nextcloud, GitLab on your server. Find out more or install now.


Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Bookmarks
  • Search
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

Cloudron Forum

Apps | Demo | Docs | Install
  1. Cloudron Forum
  2. Announcements
  3. What's coming in 6.0 (take 2)

What's coming in 6.0 (take 2)

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Announcements
142 Posts 22 Posters 65.9k Views 24 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • girishG girish

      @jdaviescoates said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):

      However, some of the music streaming apps etc like Navidrome (which is what I thought I'd use a Hetzner Storage box CIFS for) can have users with different permissions too, so still not sure if that'll be possible?

      Yes, definitely possible. App users are entirely different from file system permissions. Without getting too technical, users inside an app are just "virtual users". They just exist inside the app's database.

      jdaviescoatesJ Offline
      jdaviescoatesJ Offline
      jdaviescoates
      wrote on last edited by
      #69

      @girish OK!

      So maybe I will start uploading my 290GB of music up to my new 500GB Hetzner Storage Box to use like this as soon as 6.0 goes live! 😄

      I use Cloudron with Gandi & Hetzner

      1 Reply Last reply
      2
      • girishG girish

        We are continuing to work on getting many more of the apps published, see the WIP tag. Thanks to the community for really helping us out here!

        Features planned for 6.0:

        • Ubuntu Focal 20.04 support
        • Mailbox sharing - we tried IMAP based mailbox sharing but this doesn't work well for the apps we have. We will instead make it such that a single mailbox can have multiple owners.
        • Optimize WP and Nextcloud installations. This is not directly related to box code but we want to speeden things up and optimize the configs since we have a large number of installs with these 2 apps. @MooCloud_Matt has given us a lot of ideas to work with here.
        • Mail - Full text search via IMAP (solr integration)
        • Volume management - this will allow mounting paths on the host into apps.
        • i18n

        We removed the unified dashboard for now. @nebulon and I think it will take a good 1-2 months to implement and test and we want to keep the releases going. We will start implementing unified dashboard in a branch.

        jdaviescoatesJ Offline
        jdaviescoatesJ Offline
        jdaviescoates
        wrote on last edited by
        #70

        @girish said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):

        see the WIP tag

        Oooh, just looked at that for the first time in a while and I see BigBlueButton and Jitsi Meet are included... who is actively working on them atm, is it you @girish @nebulon ? 🙂

        Cloudron 6.0 with full text email search, volumes and BBB/ Jitsi would be SO awesome! (loving all the new music/ media apps too!)

        I use Cloudron with Gandi & Hetzner

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • mehdiM Offline
          mehdiM Offline
          mehdi
          App Dev
          wrote on last edited by
          #71

          Once there are proper Volumes, my River app won't have too much reason to exist, so you can expect a few other apps soon after 6.0 release as I split river into independent apps (namely SickChill, CouchPotato, and Transmission)

          LonkleL girishG 2 Replies Last reply
          2
          • mehdiM mehdi

            Once there are proper Volumes, my River app won't have too much reason to exist, so you can expect a few other apps soon after 6.0 release as I split river into independent apps (namely SickChill, CouchPotato, and Transmission)

            LonkleL Offline
            LonkleL Offline
            Lonkle
            wrote on last edited by
            #72

            @mehdi said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):

            Once there are proper Volumes, my River app won't have too much reason to exist, so you can expect a few other apps soon after 6.0 release as I split river into independent apps (namely SickChill, CouchPotato, and Transmission)

            Did your River app combine those apps with an added external storage connection bit?

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • mehdiM Offline
              mehdiM Offline
              mehdi
              App Dev
              wrote on last edited by mehdi
              #73

              @lonk It combines Jellyfin (for which there's already an app now), Transmission, SickChill, Couchpotato (the 3 I just mentioned), a custom file manager (built before Cloudron had one), and a custom TV Shows and Movies streaming interface (built before I integrated Jellyfin). Plus a few custom things, like a script to auto-remove finished torrents on transmission, and a script to auto-convert videos to MP4 for easy streaming in the browser (for my custom streaming interface. I disabled it now that I mainly use jellyfin, which handles this automatically).

              1 Reply Last reply
              5
              • mehdiM mehdi

                Once there are proper Volumes, my River app won't have too much reason to exist, so you can expect a few other apps soon after 6.0 release as I split river into independent apps (namely SickChill, CouchPotato, and Transmission)

                girishG Offline
                girishG Offline
                girish
                Staff
                wrote on last edited by
                #74

                @mehdi said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):

                Once there are proper Volumes, my River app won't have too much reason to exist, so you can expect a few other apps soon after 6.0 release as I split river into independent apps (namely SickChill, CouchPotato, and Transmission)

                When you have time, please split them out and I can start approving them as unstable already. It also gives me a good test bed to test the volumes stuff across apps and permissions.

                mehdiM 1 Reply Last reply
                3
                • girishG girish

                  @mehdi said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):

                  Once there are proper Volumes, my River app won't have too much reason to exist, so you can expect a few other apps soon after 6.0 release as I split river into independent apps (namely SickChill, CouchPotato, and Transmission)

                  When you have time, please split them out and I can start approving them as unstable already. It also gives me a good test bed to test the volumes stuff across apps and permissions.

                  mehdiM Offline
                  mehdiM Offline
                  mehdi
                  App Dev
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #75

                  @girish said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):

                  When you have time, please split them out and I can start approving them as unstable already.

                  OK, will do. I will have to pick your brain a little about how to handle authentication for these apps. In river, they're behind a custom auth proxy, as they don't handle auth by themselves.

                  girishG 1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  • mehdiM mehdi

                    @girish said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):

                    When you have time, please split them out and I can start approving them as unstable already.

                    OK, will do. I will have to pick your brain a little about how to handle authentication for these apps. In river, they're behind a custom auth proxy, as they don't handle auth by themselves.

                    girishG Offline
                    girishG Offline
                    girish
                    Staff
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #76

                    @mehdi said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):

                    OK, will do. I will have to pick your brain a little about how to handle authentication for these apps.

                    Would it make sense to bring that into box code somehow? Maybe we add some flag in the manifest to turn on this "authentication wall".

                    @nebulon Is it possible to have a login screen like the surfer app but served from box code? I guess session management possibly won't work since app has no clue about this? Maybe logout won't work as well since there is no logout button in the app.

                    mehdiM 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • girishG girish

                      @mehdi said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):

                      OK, will do. I will have to pick your brain a little about how to handle authentication for these apps.

                      Would it make sense to bring that into box code somehow? Maybe we add some flag in the manifest to turn on this "authentication wall".

                      @nebulon Is it possible to have a login screen like the surfer app but served from box code? I guess session management possibly won't work since app has no clue about this? Maybe logout won't work as well since there is no logout button in the app.

                      mehdiM Offline
                      mehdiM Offline
                      mehdi
                      App Dev
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #77

                      @girish said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):

                      Would it make sense to bring that into box code somehow? Maybe we add some flag in the manifest to turn on this "authentication wall".

                      It would be possible yeah. An other possibility would be to have a standard way to do it in the "base image", to make it easy to implement in the apps that need it. I would probably go with the "base image" path, because it would be easier to configure on an app level IMO.

                      girishG 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • mehdiM mehdi

                        @girish said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):

                        Would it make sense to bring that into box code somehow? Maybe we add some flag in the manifest to turn on this "authentication wall".

                        It would be possible yeah. An other possibility would be to have a standard way to do it in the "base image", to make it easy to implement in the apps that need it. I would probably go with the "base image" path, because it would be easier to configure on an app level IMO.

                        girishG Offline
                        girishG Offline
                        girish
                        Staff
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #78

                        @mehdi Good idea. Maybe then for the moment we can copy/paste apache configs in every app (like https://git.cloudron.io/cloudron/simple-torrent-app/-/blob/master/apache/cloud-torrent.conf ) for now and once we have a something common, I can try to put it in the next base image.

                        LonkleL 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • girishG girish

                          @mehdi Good idea. Maybe then for the moment we can copy/paste apache configs in every app (like https://git.cloudron.io/cloudron/simple-torrent-app/-/blob/master/apache/cloud-torrent.conf ) for now and once we have a something common, I can try to put it in the next base image.

                          LonkleL Offline
                          LonkleL Offline
                          Lonkle
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #79

                          I really like that approach as well. I'll follow what you guys create and what changes occur to the base image! ☺️

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • nebulonN Offline
                            nebulonN Offline
                            nebulon
                            Staff
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #80

                            So the idea is to put some kind of "framework" into the base image, which can be used by apps? Wouldn't that anyways still not mean that an app needs to be patched for at least the logout action? Also would we do this as a php set of features? I do like to not pull this into the platform code as such, as that does not increase dependency on that.

                            Alternately, we could certainly add a login screen served up with some kind of session. The question then, as already mentioned, is how to logout. We could provide the app with a logout link, still that needs patching the app to some extent.

                            mehdiM ei8fdbE 2 Replies Last reply
                            1
                            • nebulonN nebulon

                              So the idea is to put some kind of "framework" into the base image, which can be used by apps? Wouldn't that anyways still not mean that an app needs to be patched for at least the logout action? Also would we do this as a php set of features? I do like to not pull this into the platform code as such, as that does not increase dependency on that.

                              Alternately, we could certainly add a login screen served up with some kind of session. The question then, as already mentioned, is how to logout. We could provide the app with a logout link, still that needs patching the app to some extent.

                              mehdiM Offline
                              mehdiM Offline
                              mehdi
                              App Dev
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #81

                              @nebulon IMO the login part is much more important than the logout part. We can even do completely without the logout at all in the interface, with just a /logout URL that one would have to enter manually (if ever).

                              As to the precise tech to use, I already have a working version in Node.JS in river that I could isolate. If you guys prefer to re-do it in PHP instead or something else, it's your choice.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              1
                              • nebulonN Offline
                                nebulonN Offline
                                nebulon
                                Staff
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #82

                                Right, I was only bringing up php since that might be more commonly already be used within such apps, I would prefer a nodejs solution though. Maybe we can collect some arguments for and against adding to the base image or into the platform.

                                If we add it to the platform, we could have it more easily streamlined with the Cloudron look and feel, however within the base image the app could style it more towards its own look and feel. Putting it in the platform on the other hand would allow support translation now once it fully landed. Also say we use a nodejs based version, then we have to keep running an additional process with possibly another proxy even?

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • jimcavoliJ Offline
                                  jimcavoliJ Offline
                                  jimcavoli
                                  App Dev
                                  wrote on last edited by jimcavoli
                                  #83

                                  Just pointing out that this might be better served by using something like a proper gateway and load balancing solution in front of the apps like Kong rather than NGINx on the box. An add-on for a basic auth screen could just be a config tweak to the box ingress which hits an auth wall - added advantage would be much more flexible routing to apps (sub-path, etc.) and flexible options like having multiple DNS names resolving to the straight A record for things like apps that can serve multiple domain names off one instance.

                                  MooCloud_MattM 1 Reply Last reply
                                  3
                                  • robiR Offline
                                    robiR Offline
                                    robi
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #84

                                    Bringing in some service mesh concepts would be interesting.

                                    Conscious tech

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • jimcavoliJ jimcavoli

                                      Just pointing out that this might be better served by using something like a proper gateway and load balancing solution in front of the apps like Kong rather than NGINx on the box. An add-on for a basic auth screen could just be a config tweak to the box ingress which hits an auth wall - added advantage would be much more flexible routing to apps (sub-path, etc.) and flexible options like having multiple DNS names resolving to the straight A record for things like apps that can serve multiple domain names off one instance.

                                      MooCloud_MattM Offline
                                      MooCloud_MattM Offline
                                      MooCloud_Matt
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #85

                                      @jimcavoli
                                      You mean to use Kong or Traefik (this are exeple) as incoming proxy for every container ?

                                      If yes, we need to consider how reliable is Nginx and the feature that can be easily added (Proxy_Cache, brotli, WAF, ...)

                                      Matteo. R.
                                      Founder and Tech-Support Manager.
                                      MooCloud MSP
                                      Swiss Managed Service Provider

                                      jimcavoliJ 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • MooCloud_MattM MooCloud_Matt

                                        @jimcavoli
                                        You mean to use Kong or Traefik (this are exeple) as incoming proxy for every container ?

                                        If yes, we need to consider how reliable is Nginx and the feature that can be easily added (Proxy_Cache, brotli, WAF, ...)

                                        jimcavoliJ Offline
                                        jimcavoliJ Offline
                                        jimcavoli
                                        App Dev
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #86

                                        @moocloud_matt yeah, there's currently a box level NGINx proxy - my idea is to replace that with a very hand-wavy something else which may be capable of shimming authentication for those things that just don't have it inbuilt (Kong) or if we go a different route on that sort of thing, we could use Traefik or similar at that layer. I think the use cases are intriguing enough to at least try the Kong route and fall back to something like Traefik if need be

                                        MooCloud_MattM 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • jimcavoliJ jimcavoli

                                          @moocloud_matt yeah, there's currently a box level NGINx proxy - my idea is to replace that with a very hand-wavy something else which may be capable of shimming authentication for those things that just don't have it inbuilt (Kong) or if we go a different route on that sort of thing, we could use Traefik or similar at that layer. I think the use cases are intriguing enough to at least try the Kong route and fall back to something like Traefik if need be

                                          MooCloud_MattM Offline
                                          MooCloud_MattM Offline
                                          MooCloud_Matt
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #87

                                          @jimcavoli
                                          for adding .htpasswd support ? or what kind of auth are you talking about?

                                          Matteo. R.
                                          Founder and Tech-Support Manager.
                                          MooCloud MSP
                                          Swiss Managed Service Provider

                                          jimcavoliJ 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          • MooCloud_MattM MooCloud_Matt

                                            @jimcavoli
                                            for adding .htpasswd support ? or what kind of auth are you talking about?

                                            jimcavoliJ Offline
                                            jimcavoliJ Offline
                                            jimcavoli
                                            App Dev
                                            wrote on last edited by
                                            #88

                                            @moocloud_matt Kong is a pretty expansive topic on its own, but the idea would be with it in charge of ingress/routing, you could have a simple add-on config that would take care of enabling a plugin like https://docs.konghq.com/hub/kong-inc/ldap-auth/ on the route to a particular app, so you could have HTTP basic auth, but completely backed by the full Cloudron user store for any app that doesn't have its own scheme, providing clean headers that could be easily handled by that app's eb server or whatever

                                            MooCloud_MattM 1 Reply Last reply
                                            0
                                            Reply
                                            • Reply as topic
                                            Log in to reply
                                            • Oldest to Newest
                                            • Newest to Oldest
                                            • Most Votes


                                              • Login

                                              • Don't have an account? Register

                                              • Login or register to search.
                                              • First post
                                                Last post
                                              0
                                              • Categories
                                              • Recent
                                              • Tags
                                              • Popular
                                              • Bookmarks
                                              • Search