You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Victor Romero <vi...@gmail.com> on 2016/04/08 06:16:53 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker
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 (<cl...@gmail.com>)
escribió:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>
> 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 <cl...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> 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 <an...@gmail.com>
> >>> 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 <
> >>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> >>>>> 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
>
Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
That is awesome to hear. One thing to point out - the ASF already has a
docker hub account, so likely this image should reside under the ASF
https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/.
John
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:17 AM Victor Romero <vi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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 (<cl...@gmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Andy Taylor <an...@gmail.com>
> > 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 <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >:
> > >>
> > >>> 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 <an...@gmail.com>
> > >>> 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 <
> > >>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> > >>>>> 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
> >
>