On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Andy Taylor <[email protected]> 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 <[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 >>> >> > -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus Camel in Action 2nd edition: https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
