Hi all,Following this discussion with interest, since I greatly enjoy the portability and consistency that Docker provides. I have some questions about the Dockerfile linked above that might be best served in a code review, but a more holistic question I wanted to ask:Does ActiveMQ need to publish the Dockerfile?In my opinion, simply defining the image then documenting its location (README, website) and how to use it would add value to many consumers. That way:* The Dockerfile code can live within the ActiveMQ repository and be close to the code * Anyone who wishes to consume the dockerfile can (Apache 2.0 license) through their own build process * The ActiveMQ community does not need to maintain any additional infrastructure, release process, repositories, dependencies. * The Dockerfile can and should be independent of particular binaries<https://docs.docker.com/develop/develop-images/dockerfile_best-practices/#env> whenever possible, but even if not, this way each active branch would be the source of truth for a functioning Dockerfile (can build and run tests on the version), and no incremental versions would have to be published. I think we could gain lots of value for little investment this way. What do you think?
Cheers, Étienne P.S. should I add the questions on the JIRA ticket as well? Étienne Hossack Software Development Engineer, Amazon MQ email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> phone: +1-778-945-8287 [cid:[email protected]] On Feb 17, 2021, at 9:38 AM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. It would be nice to do the same with Artemis... we already have scripts to build the images as part of the build.. we just don't have the builds yet. On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 10:36 AM Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod) < [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello All, Quick introduction: My name is Rod. I work with Chuck. I am stepping in while he is out. I am the coworker who does the TomEE images. I have a question on the tarballs on https://archive.apache.org and https://repo1.maven.org. I noticed that the images are not the same SHA and not the same size. Is there a reason for that? BTW, the Dockerfile is mostly complete, https://github.com/shankc1crs/docker-activemq/blob/master/classic/5.16/jre11/openjdk-buster/Dockerfile. I think the only thing left was getting the maven download to work as the fallback to the other repos. I can still make that work, but I thought it was strange to see a difference in the sizes of the files. This is what we are proposing. I am going to start on the other options later today. We would be happy for any feedback. Thanks, Rod. *From: *"Shank, Charles R" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> *Date: *Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 8:49 AM *To: *Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Matt Pavlovich < [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> *Cc: *"Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> *Subject: *Official Docker Image for ActiveMQ Jean, I agree we should make this its own issue and open up the discussion to the ActiveMQ community Currently, we are working on the following repository to provide generic images available to the ActiveMQ community. You can follow our progress here: *https://github.com/shankc1crs/docker-activemq <https://github.com/shankc1crs/docker-activemq>* Because the needs of the community are varied, we recommend making multiple versions of ActiveMQ classic and Artemis. The repos also will be created to include OpenJDK and AdoptopenJDK. We also recommend leaving room for other operating systems other than Debian and multiple versions of JDK within both OpenJDK and AdoptopenJDK. Given the number of options, we are not sure how we would go about using a module to maintain the dockerfiles, but would be open to it. Once we get our dockerimages complete, we can discuss how they are maintained going forward. We will also investigate with the folks at https://github.com/docker-library to see what is required to get our images listed as the official images. I have a coworker that is responsible for the TomEE official images and has some contacts there. We would like to get the communities thoughts and input on this course of action. Thank you Chuck Shank [image: cid:[email protected]] [image: cid:[email protected]] -- Clebert Suconic
