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.
2015-10-01 6:48 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[email protected]>:
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 <[email protected]>
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 <
[email protected]>
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
