I keep seeing mention of having multiple variations of docker images using
different base images and some thoughts come to mind.
Here are my thoughts:
- Docker staged builds make it easy to copy specific contents from one
base image into a new one, leaving behind unwanted content (e.g. O/S or JDK
specifics)
- If the ActiveMQ-specific parts are placed in dedicated directories,
copying them out to new images would be straight forward
- Of couse, the number of combinations folks will want can grow to
unmaintainable levels quickly
- Having official image(s) that are functional, and provide a
"quick-start" to meet the following use-cases would be great value across
the board:
- New user spinning up a broker to learn/experiment
- Build/Test pipeline ephemeral broker for application testing
purposes
- Docker containers have many means to gain access to additional tooling
not built-into an image
- Because of this, having a minimal container is not overly-limiting
- Of course, getting tools working with a process in a docker
container can be challenging (e.g. not everyone will be
comfortable to use
nsenter), so some basic tools may be good to have
- Providing a basic, well-structured image enables more complex
use-cases without having to clean-up / undo more advanced
Hope this helps.
Art
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:38 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I’m preparing ActiveMQ 5.17.0 with lot of changes, I plan to include
> docker image there.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 17 mars 2021 à 09:26, Havret <h4v...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > Any update on this?
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 00:30 Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I feel like we are stuck again on Infra.
> >>
> >> On the clone for artemis someone suggested asking for help in
> >> build.Apache.org which I then answered we just need help and
> authorization
> >> to upload stuff
> >>
> >>
> >> Anyone have any insight!?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 1:33 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Not yet. INFRA has assigned that task, but not taken any action on the
> >>> request. I’ll nudge for an update.
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 24, 2021, at 12:21 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> >> clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you have a Jenkins job already aligned to build it ?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 12:19 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I’m prepping the PR for 5.17.0. Please provide feedback on the JIRA.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2021, at 11:16 AM, Havret <h4v...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any update on this? I've just seen that Victor Romero archived his
> >>>>>> unofficial docker image. :(
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 4:57 PM Clebert Suconic <
> >>>>> clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm following up on that JIRA ticket.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:57 AM Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>> <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks Matt, I thought you already had some information about
> >> changes
> >>>>>>>> on Infra. I had misunderstood you.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:33 AM Matt Pavlovich <
> >> mattr...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert-
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I do not have all the info yet, INFRA has assigned the ticket but
> >>> not
> >>>>>>> started working on it =)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Matt
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 19, 2021, at 9:25 AM, Clebert Suconic <
> >>>>>>> clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I tried to follow the JIRA on Infra and I did not see much
> >>>>>>> information about it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What's the procedure to upload images?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The only thing I saw was this JIRA: But it seemed you would be
> >>>>>>>>>> uploading images manually?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21430
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Isn't there an official way to provide the images?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In artemis we have a docker module where you would build the
> >>> binaries
> >>>>>>>>>> and create the image. We would just need to add that to a
> Jenkins
> >>>>>>>>>> build and produce an image whenever a tag is created.
> >>>>>>>>>> I suppose ActiveMQ branch would do the same...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> How this is supposed to work?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> thank you
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 4:13 PM Matt Pavlovich <
> >> mattr...@gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The initial features list and notes in the JIRA reflect this
> >>>>>>> approach. I’ll start on the module and push a PR this weekend.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Matt
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2021, at 2:08 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <
> >>> j...@nanthrax.net
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>
> >>> --
> >> Clebert Suconic
> >>
>
>
