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 (<[email protected]>) escribió: > 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 >
