Hello Jean,
I think there may be a couple things missing in the method you use for Karaf.
First, many people look to Dockerhub to get prebuild official images. Second,
your method locks people into specific JDK and OS (unless, I am missing
something).
If you look at how Tomcat or TomEE releases their official images, you will see
that there are many tags that allow people choices based on OS, JDK, etc.
Also, I think it would be beneficial to be listed on Dockerhub as an official
image. Currently, there are people who create some for consumption, but the
most popular is two years out of date. There is one person publishing an up to
date Artemis image.
I am not saying one approach is right or wrong, but servers different users.
Thanks,
Rod.
On 2/17/21, 2:08 PM, "Jean-Baptiste Onofre" <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
Nationwide Information Security Warning: This is an EXTERNAL email. Use
CAUTION before clicking on links, opening attachments, or responding. (Sender:
dev-return-72220-JENKIR14=nationwide....@activemq.apache.org)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I agree, I think it’s the most convenient approach.
For instance, at Karaf, I maintain a Dockerfile as part of the codebase:
https://github.com/apache/karaf/tree/master/assemblies/docker
<https://github.com/apache/karaf/tree/master/assemblies/docker>
As part of a Karaf release, I’m pushing Karaf docker image.
However, anyone can start from the Karaf Dockerfile to create their own one
(we also provide a goal on the karaf-maven-plugin to do so).
I think ActiveMQ (at least classic) should just provide a Dockerfile (or a
set) and push "official" docker images. But still letting people to create
their own.
Regards
JB
> Le 17 févr. 2021 à 19:51, Hossack, Etienne <ehoss...@amazon.com.INVALID>
a écrit :
>
> 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: ehoss...@amazon.com <mailto:ehoss...@amazon.com>
> phone: +1-778-945-8287
>
>
>
>> On Feb 17, 2021, at 9:38 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com
<mailto:clebert.suco...@gmail.com>> 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) <
>> jenki...@nationwide.com <mailto:jenki...@nationwide.com>> 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
<https://archive.apache.org/> and
>>> https://repo1.maven.org <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
<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" <shan...@nationwide.com
<mailto:shan...@nationwide.com>>
>>> *Date: *Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 8:49 AM
>>> *To: *Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net
<mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>>, Matt Pavlovich <
>>> mattr...@gmail.com <mailto:mattr...@gmail.com>>,
"dev@activemq.apache.org <mailto:dev@activemq.apache.org>"
<dev@activemq.apache.org <mailto:dev@activemq.apache.org>>
>>> *Cc: *"Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod)" <jenki...@nationwide.com
<mailto:jenki...@nationwide.com>>
>>> *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>
>>> <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 <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:image001.gif@01D70449.0A4B26E0
<cid:image001.gif@01D70449.0A4B26E0>]
>>> [image: cid:image002.gif@01D70449.0A4B26E0
<cid:image002.gif@01D70449.0A4B26E0>]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>
