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 Fri, 08 Apr 2016 04:16:53 GMT
Hi all,
Apologies for resurrecting old thread.

As result of our conversations here I published 6 months ago a docker image
<https://hub.docker.com/r/vromero/activemq-artemis/> for Artemis 1.0, 1.1
and 1.2 (as they were released).

In this time there have been > 150 installations, 1 pull request, 1
stackoverflow and no complains.

I'd like to contribute it for an official artemis docker image, probably in
the form of its own github repo (so I don't think a PR would be a fit) +
bespoke documentation in the manual. I would be happy to maintain it just
as I've been doing with the unofficial version.

I'd love to hear if a separate repo is something acceptable, and any other
opinions regarding this.

Thanks

El vie., 2 oct. 2015 a las 1:05, Claus Ibsen (<claus.ibsen@gmail.com>)
escribió:

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