activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker
Date Fri, 02 Oct 2015 08:04:22 GMT
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/10/15 20:52, Victor Romero wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations being
>>> done as part of ./artemis create...
>>
>>
>>> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
>>> security... and we can even add more options to it.
>>
>>
>> I see, the ones you mention are actually covered in my previous example:
>>
>>     - clustered v non clustered would be two different images published to
>>     dockerhub.
>>     - HTTP PORTS, ports. Ports configuration is irrelevant in docker,
>> given
>>     that images are single process its unlikely there will be port
>> collision
>>     and ports are then exported from the container to the docker host with
>> -P
>>     (that will use random ports) or -p that will use manually picked
>> ports.
>>     - Users can be configured in place just as per my published example
>>     <https://hub.docker.com/r/vromero/activemq-artemis/> (-e
>>     ARTEMIS_USER=myuser -e ARTEMIS_PASSWORD=otherpassword).
>>
>> The rest you share in gist
>> <https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181> can be
>> definitely converted to parameters or considered complex configuration to
>> be mounted (this is exactly what the nginx image
>> <https://hub.docker.com/_/nginx/> does for example).
>>
>> Summarizing:
>>
>>> What about this, we provide the official image with sensible defaults...
>>
>>
>>    Agree at 100% with this. It might be one or perhaps two depending how
>> clean is configure clustering with docker params.
>>
>>> and have a --docker option on artemis create to extend the image like you
>>
>> said?
>>
>>    Here I'm just in doubt, Artemis would be the first one doing something
>> like this (and therefor users won't even expect it) plus it might fall in
>> a
>> gray area between using the standard image with perhaps one or to
>> parameters and using the standard image mounting the etc directory with
>> complex configuration. Effectively it would be promoting the creation of
>> an
>> image per every possible configuration rather than a single configurable
>> image, and that would be against the docker philosophy itself.
>>
>>    But again, I don't really know, I'd love to hear other opinions.
>
> I agree, I dont think we need a --docker option, I think we should provide
> some official docker images that have a basic amount of configuration
> options and the option to mount external configuration. People can extend
> these images if they need to add anything further.
>

+1 for official docker image and have it configurable using ENV
variables and/or other ways.



>>
>>
>> 2015-10-01 6:48 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> What about this, we provide the official image with sensible defaults...
>>>
>>> and have a --docker option on artemis create to extend the image like you
>>> said?
>>>
>>>
>>> the user would just download the image...
>>>
>>> /artemis create --docker <image-name> could then extend the image by
>>> externalizing the configuration? ... we could create scripts to start the
>>> image with the external configurations..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Would that make sense?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see the point of having lots of different images and passing in
>>>> variables to add to the configuration can also get a bit clunky.
>>>>
>>>> I would have 1 or 2 images maybe standalone and clustered and allow the
>>>> configuration files location to be passed in when the image is run,
>>>> something like
>>>>
>>>> docker run --name my-artemis -e ARTEMIS_CONF=somewhere else
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/10/15 14:00, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> These are the options that can be part of a create:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Clebert Suconic <
>>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid I kind of disagree with you in believeing there is value on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the artemis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> create phase. There is very little  customization at that point
and
>>>
>>> very
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> little to no value at all would be added by generating a docker
image
>>>
>>> at
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this phase, i.e: Why not just have an official docker image published
>>>
>>> in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dockerhub that would have the very same effect with much less
tooling
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> non standard procedures involved?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations
>>>
>>> being
>>>>>>
>>>>>> done as part of ./artemis create...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
>>>>>> security... and we can even add more options to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, adding a --docker would allow users to create a very customized
>>>>>> version of a docker instance. And the maven plugins we created as
part
>>>
>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the examples on 1.1.0 would get all the benefit of such a new feature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *What about creating an image of an already customized instance?*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you could have a lot of customizations..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally I would create one or two images, the one I already
>>>>>>> created
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> potentially another one customized for clustering.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think it would be just one or two
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>
>>
>



-- 
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2nd edition:
https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition

Mime
View raw message