[GitHub] [bookkeeper] ravisharda commented on a change in pull request #2433: Update to OpenJDK11 in Docker image

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

ravisharda commented on a change in pull request #2433:
URL: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/2433#discussion_r502287907



##########
File path: docker/Dockerfile
##########
@@ -20,20 +20,20 @@
 FROM centos:7
 MAINTAINER Apache BookKeeper <de...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
 
-ARG BK_VERSION=4.9.0
+ARG BK_VERSION=4.11.0

Review comment:
       This also upgrades the image to use 4.11.0, apart from changing the Java version. Would it make sense to separate the two and merge it to older release lines, so that users using older versions of Bookkeeper like v4.9.2 can also benefit from the Java upgrade? 

##########
File path: docker/README.md
##########
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Bookkeeper needs [Zookeeper](https://zookeeper.apache.org/) in order to preserve
 Just like running a BookKeeper cluster in one machine(http://bookkeeper.apache.org/docs/latest/getting-started/run-locally/), you can run a standalone BookKeeper in one docker container, the command is:
 ```
 docker run -it \
-     --env JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.8.0 \
+     --env JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/jdk-11 \

Review comment:
       Should we install the JRE instead? I suppose installing JDK instead of JRE would increase the image size. I'm not sure whether that increase in size is significant in relation to the overall image size or not. What are your thoughts about this?




----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org