I agree with Justin that sharing the apache/activemq namespace for both "Classic" and Artemis will cause conflicts and confusion, i.e. the latest tag now is pointing to Apache ActiveMQ Classic 5.18.2 but when an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis version will be pushed, it will point to a container image for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis. Adopting a good solution now, as the one proposed by Justin, will prevent future issues for all Apache ActiveMQ users.
Domenico On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 15:58, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > This weekend JB announced [1] the availability of official Docker images > for ActiveMQ "Classic" in the "apache/activemq" namespace [2]. > > Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall (and can't find) any discussion of > or notification about this. Users will certainly expect images for both > "Classic" and Artemis so my concern is regarding the namespace. If both > "Classic" and Artemis share the apache/activemq namespace directly then > there may eventually be version number conflicts and there certainly will > be confusion about which version is which. > > Before these images are widely adopted I think the namespace should be > clarified just as it is on the website so that ActiveMQ "Classic" uses > "apache/activemq/classic" and ActiveMQ Artemis uses > "apache/activemq/artemis". > > Thoughts? > > > Justin > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/4cqbm0gsbj184vrp13yorcd2rrbdcsmx > [2] https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/activemq/tags >
