Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13161200BFA for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:45:24 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 120F6160B40; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:24 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F659160B2D for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:45:22 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 20944 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jan 2017 12:45:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@karaf.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@karaf.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@karaf.apache.org Received: (qmail 20934 invoked by uid 99); 12 Jan 2017 12:45:22 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:22 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id AE3BF180BA9 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.292 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.292 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, KAM_LIVE=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URI_HEX=1.313] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pentaho.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PZ1fu9bkZlqZ for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0078.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.78]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 050EB5F370 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pentaho.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-pentaho-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=zrEsxxyn2SIU5viyASsrj0JW9+YK47BDSDf1ySuW6nA=; b=o8w6mi44nYaQ1Ilpyqife+pZA3rAggO3375S/ZaaJYpJP/opvQSQ7AZr5upR+8HKimzprXdNuFsut2Oj5Ak1AhdIjli3M1n+Uy5J6YXIRWtNutOV6xXpbDP0/34UiMQ96NiZszUuQCkTCwugmqjCTJl5bMf9g4+wrqb2cQSnJWU= Received: from CY1PR0601MB1438.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.163.21.20) by CY1PR0601MB1437.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.163.21.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.817.10; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:44:46 +0000 Received: from CY1PR0601MB1438.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.21.20]) by CY1PR0601MB1438.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.21.20]) with mapi id 15.01.0817.022; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:44:46 +0000 From: Nick Baker To: user Subject: Re: Levels of Containerization - focus on Docker and Karaf Thread-Topic: Levels of Containerization - focus on Docker and Karaf Thread-Index: AQHSbEZQy1GUMpqBeEqnKdbVwIoFHKE0rDMAgAAeCkc= Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:44:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1484165220006-4049162.post@n3.nabble.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=nbaker@pentaho.com; x-originating-ip: [25.164.65.4] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a05fdd3b-1e3e-4b87-b778-08d43ae8ca74 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:CY1PR0601MB1437; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;CY1PR0601MB1437;7:TPOioRCZRgnqVdceDJWQuJ0Ls3fDYusWI+Jcr6f5NKK3FMq75fLyB4NZk/mHhLc8g/M4u30vY8xG1EOkc8ZvlZtwG+BFKE6MvP7XXGsznaDFrw+2Ge0/kW0QXttWcQmbh4hIFC6eoDzXgxoUngKcXOC+MDMwLVfCBRaMggnyHdsTTzRuTLgioqpRJSO5g68ssOpCdBcv2eHtkiFLstHrzAyUVqkP0xt070PwceNCP/hLR3QVTUjnsV8Fqi/zjHSAX6o42uHNuimPG0vdHcciTMiGD4X38lA0Zr7pZfq0XCCHcaTi8C59y8bhIz23RwfBpMsvAmgQt3Y/xXZ4X3tXjtAL8mS0ICwnHuzHvNiDHkRJHv2yRQTCgM/EUxadiyf3QK8JghvdUqmMB24sLITqF8egdAsh2L3yNvds3eYtC7ycGHPpZdmlaJ7QNMg2zHWbbSoPfr69TAIDDiI6e3B3uA== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(166708455590820)(71999270014205); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041248)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(6072148);SRVR:CY1PR0601MB1437;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0601MB1437; x-forefront-prvs: 018577E36E x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10009020)(7916002)(39450400003)(189002)(377424004)(377454003)(252514010)(199003)(2906002)(81156014)(19627405001)(33656002)(81166006)(450100001)(122556002)(9686003)(99286003)(236005)(2900100001)(86362001)(54896002)(6306002)(55016002)(16601075003)(76176999)(68736007)(16410355002)(7696004)(54356999)(6506006)(8936002)(97736004)(106356001)(50986999)(5660300001)(106116001)(16297215004)(107886002)(3846002)(102836003)(6116002)(66066001)(3660700001)(25786008)(3280700002)(92566002)(229853002)(6916009)(2950100002)(77096006)(110136003)(101416001)(38730400001)(7906003)(105586002)(8676002)(189998001)(15395725005)(606005)(6436002)(74316002)(7736002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101;SCL:1;SRVR:CY1PR0601MB1437;H:CY1PR0601MB1438.namprd06.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;PTR:InfoNoRecords;MX:1;A:1;LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: pentaho.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CY1PR0601MB14385A7320FA6DBE69B43612CD790CY1PR0601MB1438_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: pentaho.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Jan 2017 12:44:46.5129 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5e847f17-91c4-4532-8b86-a98544e1ca8c X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0601MB1437 archived-at: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:45:24 -0000 --_000_CY1PR0601MB14385A7320FA6DBE69B43612CD790CY1PR0601MB1438_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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 al= l the OSGi dynamism, i.e. no feature service, no deploy folder, read-only c= onfig admin, all bundles being installed at startup time from etc/startup.p= roperties. This can be easily done by using the karaf maven plugin and configuring sta= rtupFeatures and referencing the static kar, as shown in: https://github.com/apache/karaf/blob/master/demos/profiles/static/pom.xml 2017-01-11 21:07 GMT+01:00 CodeCola >: 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 Container= s (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? -- View this message in context: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Levels-of-C= ontainerization-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: gnodet@redhat.com Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ --_000_CY1PR0601MB14385A7320FA6DBE69B43612CD790CY1PR0601MB1438_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 <g= nodet@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 5:55:24 AM
To: user
Subject: Re: Levels of Containerization - focus on Docker and Karaf<= /font>
 
Fwiw, starting with Karaf 4.x, you can build custom distri= butions which are mostly static, and that more closely map to micro-service= s / 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 bun= dles being installed at startup time from etc/startup.properties.
This can be easily done by using the karaf maven plugin and configurin= g startupFeatures and referencing the static kar, as shown in:


2017-01-11 21:07 GMT+01:00 CodeCola <pra= senjit@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<= br> 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 Container= s
(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.92217= 1.n3.nabble.com/file/n4049162/Levels_of_Containerization.png<= wbr>>



--
View this message in context: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Levels-of-Containerization-focu= s-on-Docker-and-Karaf-tp4049162.html
Sent from the Karaf - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Red Hat, Open Source Integration


--_000_CY1PR0601MB14385A7320FA6DBE69B43612CD790CY1PR0601MB1438_--