Luca,
Thanks. Things don’t always start out general – sometimes they are committed
here
to Apache and generalized over time. I would say what you did is a great
candidate for
a specific “product” of the Apache OODT PMC. Either way, it either a) should
come as
a “product” of the Apache OODT PMC, realizing it’s not general yet, and will
possibly
never be generalized, but given the broad exposure here would open it up to
more
possibility that it will be generalized; or b) the name of the Docker image and
GH org
you created for this needs to be changed from “OODT” to not include that in its
name.
Of course my preference is a).
Cheers,
Chris
On 11/9/17, 8:46 AM, "Sean Kelly" <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
Looks great Luca! Thanks!
--k
Cinquini, Luca (398G) wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> here it is:
>
> https://store.docker.com/community/images/oodthub/oodt-node
>
> Maybe I should mention that these images were created as part of a
> project to run OODT in a scalable architecture on the Cloud… We never
> really meant to generate a completely generic Docker version of the full
> OODT distribution. For example, the FM is always built with the Solr
> back-end. There was no attempt of generality here, rather we wanted to
> build a specific architecture that could be reused across NASA missions.
>
> thanks, L
>
>> On Nov 9, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Sean Kelly <ke...@apache.org
>> <mailto:ke...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Luca.
>>
>> For the short term, please go ahead and add the warning like on [1]
>> that using the image = agreeing to Oracle's license.
>>
>> Another issue that we should address is the size of the image:
>>
>> alpine latest 76da55c8019d 8 weeks ago 3.97MB
>> nutjob4life/catpics latest de30a9f84796 6 weeks ago 57.4MB
>> lwieske/java-8 jdk-8u131-slim 326f0b00e419 4 months ago 164MB
>> python 2.7-slim 451c85955bc2 3 months ago 182MB
>> plone latest e9918460c2e8 9 months ago 424MB
>> oodthub/oodt-node latest cac1bf988d5d 3 months ago 1.38GB
>>
>> 1.38 *giga* bytes! I'm going to wager you're not using a multi-stage
>> build here because that's enormous. Once you commit the Dockerfile we
>> can work together to see if we can trim it down a bit.
>>
>> Take care
>> --k
>>
>>
>>> Cinquini, Luca (398G) <mailto:luca.cinqu...@jpl.nasa.gov>
>>> 2017-11-8 at 1.41 p
>>> Hi Sean,
>>> I am afraid I am responsible for creating those images :)…
>>>
>>> Chris asked me already to move them to the official Apache repo,
>>> which is on my list of things to do.
>>> In the past, openJDK gave me problem when using some advanced SSL
>>> features, like certificate authentication - not sure if that is the
>>> case any more.
>>> I think we could start with your proposal [1] and then possibly
>>> implement [3].
>>>
>>> BTW all these images are based on OODT-1.0, and contain only a few
>>> core services (File Manager, Workflow Manager, Crawler).
>>>
>>> thanks, Luca
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Mattmann <mailto:mattm...@apache.org>
>>> 2017-11-8 at 1.34 p
>>> Great catch!
>>>
>>> I would vote to just switch it to OpenJDK yay….
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/8/17, 11:33 AM, "Sean Kelly" <ke...@apache.org
>>> <mailto:ke...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi folks:
>>>
>>> I'm playing more and more with Docker and happily discovered that
>>> there's already an OODT presence on the Docker Store [1].
>>>
>>> So I pulled the oodt-node image [2] and looked inside ("docker history
>>> --no-trunc") and saw that one of the steps performed is:
>>>
>>> /bin/sh -c wget --no-cookies --no-check-certificate --header "Cookie:
>>> oraclelicense=accept-securebackup-cookie" -O
>>> /tmp/jdk-8-linux-x64.rpm
>>>
"http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/${JAVA_VERSION}-${JAVA_BUILD_VERSION}/d54c1d3a095b4ff2b6607d096fa80163/jdk-${JAVA_VERSION}-linux-x64.rpm";
>>>
>>> What stands out is the cookie.
>>>
>>> My fear is that using this image effectively makes the user accept
>>> Oracle's license agreement for Java but in no way notifies the user this
>>> is happening.
>>>
>>> Could we at least update the page at [1] to warn users, similar to the
>>> way this unofficial Java 8 image does it [3]? Or even better, try
>>> OpenJDK?
>>>
>>> --Sean
>>>
>>> [1] https://store.docker.com/profiles/oodthub
>>> [2] https://store.docker.com/community/images/oodthub/oodt-node
>>> [3] https://store.docker.com/community/images/lwieske/java-8
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sean Kelly
>>> Member, Apache Software Foundation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sean Kelly <mailto:ke...@apache.org>
>>> 2017-11-8 at 1.33 p
>>> Hi folks:
>>>
>>> I'm playing more and more with Docker and happily discovered that
>>> there's already an OODT presence on the Docker Store [1].
>>>
>>> So I pulled the oodt-node image [2] and looked inside ("docker
>>> history --no-trunc") and saw that one of the steps performed is:
>>>
>>> /bin/sh -c wget --no-cookies --no-check-certificate --header "Cookie:
>>> oraclelicense=accept-securebackup-cookie" -O /tmp/jdk-8-linux-x64.rpm
>>>
"http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/${JAVA_VERSION}-${JAVA_BUILD_VERSION}/d54c1d3a095b4ff2b6607d096fa80163/jdk-${JAVA_VERSION}-linux-x64.rpm";
>>>
>>> What stands out is the cookie.
>>>
>>> My fear is that using this image effectively makes the user accept
>>> Oracle's license agreement for Java but in no way notifies the user
>>> this is happening.
>>>
>>> Could we at least update the page at [1] to warn users, similar to
>>> the way this unofficial Java 8 image does it [3]? Or even better, try
>>> OpenJDK?
>>>
>>> --Sean
>>>
>>> [1]https://store.docker.com/profiles/oodthub
>>> [2]https://store.docker.com/community/images/oodthub/oodt-node
>>> [3]https://store.docker.com/community/images/lwieske/java-8
>
