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 <[email protected]> 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 (<[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 > > >
