activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Victor Romero <victor.rom...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker
Date Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:52:16 GMT
> 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.


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
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message