karaf-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Levels of Containerization - focus on Docker and Karaf
Date Fri, 13 Jan 2017 21:46:19 GMT
Thanks for the Docker info.

You’re looking for a management agent, not a different config admin.  I suggested one, it
would also be easy to write one that used suitably encoded keys for environment variables
to construct configurations e.g. <pid>.<configkey>=<value>.  Not knowing
how much of the configuration one might want to supply in environment variables, or how many
values might be reused in many places, I assumed this would be less convenient to use than
substituting a few values into larger files.  My point is intended to be that it’s not hard
to write a management agent, especially after you’ve decided what you want it to do.

david jencks

> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Nick Baker <nbaker@pentaho.com> wrote:
> 
> Injecting configuration into a containerized app (docker) is considered standard practice.
The friction here is the level of sophistication in OSGI Configuration. 
> 
> It seems to me what you need isn't some hack to push configurations through environment
variables, but a new implementation of ConfigurationAdmin, or an agent which interacts with
CM mirroring configurations in from an external system.
> 
> In our usage it's common to have a "tenant", think Walmart vs Target. Setting the tenant
ID as an environment variable then having the configurations loaded from Zookeeper or whatever,
injected into CM seems right.
> 
> -Nick
> From: Dario Amiri <dariushamiri@hotmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 3:21:17 PM
> To: user@karaf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Levels of Containerization - focus on Docker and Karaf
>  
> Let me expand on why this is desirable. Without the ability to set configuration through
environment variables, I essentially have to create a docker image for each deployment. I
have a root Dockerfile which assembles the main Karaf container image and brings in dependencies
such as the JRE, then I have a Dockerfile for each deployment environment which builds on
top of the root image by overriding deployment specific configuration. Automation reduces
this burden but it is not ideal.
> If I could set the contents of a config file in an environment variable, I could just
pass the configuration directly to my root karaf docker image without having to build on top
of it.
> 
> Being able to start Karaf as "java -jar karaf.jar" is desirable because it makes it easier
to use a Karaf based application with PaaS such as Heroku and Cloud Foundry.
> D
> 
> On 01/13/2017 12:10 PM, Dario Amiri wrote:
>> Ideally, I want to be able to do:
>> java -jar my-karaf.jar
>> And I can override individual configuration files using some environment variable
convention.
>> D
>> 
>> On 01/13/2017 11:56 AM, Brad Johnson wrote:
>>> Does it have to be an executable jar file or just a standalone executable? The
static profiles actually create and zip up a full Karaf/felix/dependency/application implementation
that when unzipped has all the standard bin directory items.
>>>  
>>> Brad
>>>  
>>> From: Dario Amiri [mailto:dariushamiri@hotmail.com <mailto:dariushamiri@hotmail.com>]

>>> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 1:28 PM
>>> To: user@karaf.apache.org <mailto:user@karaf.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Levels of Containerization - focus on Docker and Karaf
>>>  
>>> I use Docker and Karaf. I've never had a problem creating a Docker image of my
Karaf container. What I gain is freedom from having to worry about dependency related issues
such as whether the right JRE is available.
>>>  
>>> That being said there are some challenges when using Karaf to build 12-factor
apps. FWIW here's my two item list of what would make Karaf a more attractive platform from
a 12-factor app perspective.
>>>  
>>> 1. The ability to inject Karaf configuration through the environment (e.g. environment
variables). Not just a single property, but an entire config admin managed configuration file
if necessary. Even the existing support for reading property values from the environment is
cumbersome because it requires having to setup that relationship as a Java system property
as well.
>>> 2. The ability to package Karaf as a standalone runnable jar. Looks like Karaf
boot is addressing this. I hope it comes with tooling that makes it easy to transition to
this kind of model.
>>>  
>>> D
>>>  
>>> On 01/12/2017 04:44 AM, Nick Baker wrote:
>>> Thanks Guillaume! 
>>>  
>>> This is perfect for our microservice/containerized Karaf. I'll give this a try
and see if we can get our features in startup. We've had issues in the past here.
>>>  
>>> -Nick Baker
>>> From: Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org> <mailto:gnodet@apache.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 5:55:24 AM
>>> To: user
>>> Subject: Re: Levels of Containerization - focus on Docker and Karaf
>>>  
>>> Fwiw, starting with Karaf 4.x, you can build custom distributions which are mostly
static, and that more closely map to micro-services / docker images.  The "static" images
are called this way because you they kinda remove all the OSGi dynamism, i.e. no feature service,
no deploy folder, read-only config admin, all bundles being installed at startup time from
etc/startup.properties.
>>> This can be easily done by using the karaf maven plugin and configuring startupFeatures
and referencing the static kar, as shown in:
>>>   https://github.com/apache/karaf/blob/master/demos/profiles/static/pom.xml <https://github.com/apache/karaf/blob/master/demos/profiles/static/pom.xml>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 2017-01-11 21:07 GMT+01:00 CodeCola <prasenjit@rogers.com <mailto:prasenjit@rogers.com>>:
>>> Not a question but a request for comments. With a focus on Java.
>>> 
>>> Container technology has traditionally been messy with dependencies and no
>>> easy failsafe way until Docker came along to really pack ALL dependencies
>>> (including the JVM) together in one ready-to-ship image that was faster,
>>> more comfortable, and easier to understand than other container and code
>>> shipping methods out there. The spectrum from (Classical) Java EE Containers
>>> (e.g. Tomcat, Jetty) --> Java Application Servers that are containerized
>>> (Karaf, Wildfly, etc), Application Delivery Containers (Docker) and
>>> Virtualization (VMWare, Hyper-V) etc. offers a different level of isolation
>>> with different goals (abstraction, isolation and delivery).
>>> 
>>> What are the choices, how should they play together, should they be used in
>>> conjunction with each other as they offer different kinds of
>>> Containerization?
>>> 
>>> <http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/file/n4049162/Levels_of_Containerization.png
<http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/file/n4049162/Levels_of_Containerization.png>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:  <http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Levels-of-Containerization-focus-on-Docker-and-Karaf-tp4049162.html>http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Levels-of-Containerization-focus-on-Docker-and-Karaf-tp4049162.html
<http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Levels-of-Containerization-focus-on-Docker-and-Karaf-tp4049162.html>
>>> Sent from the Karaf - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------
>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>> ------------------------
>>> Red Hat, Open Source Integration
>>>  
>>> Email:  <mailto:gnodet@redhat.com>gnodet@redhat.com <mailto:gnodet@redhat.com>
>>> Web: http://fusesource.com <http://fusesource.com/>
>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ <http://gnodet.blogspot.com/>
>>>  
>>>  
>> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message