In my opinion, I don't think we need to go backward in time to improve old
docker images. We deploy the images when we tag a version for release and
it stays that way forever just like our other release artifacts. If you
want a better version of the docker image then upgrade your TinkerPop
version accordingly.

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Florian Hockmann <f...@florian-hockmann.de>
wrote:

> > I guess he just said "new images for older versions"
> > because these images do not exist yet. But once they're there, nobody
> would
> > ever update them again.
>
> Actually, I understood Jean-Baptiste's original remark on that topic as
> if he wanted to really deploy new images for older versions every time
> we change something about the Dockerfile to also get new features into
> older versions:
>
> > I think we'd somehow need to find a way to redeploy all images if we
> > tweak/improve the Dockerfile in a way that makes sense to also redeploy
> > prior images, and not just the latest releases.
>
> This would work by creating a new image for an old version (like 3.2.5)
> and tag that as 3.2.5. The older image that we deployed originally when
> 3.2.5 was released wouldn't have that tag anymore. That way, users could
> use new features we added for our Docker images also with older
> TinkerPop versions, for example better options to configure the server.
>
> However, this approach would require us to grab build artifacts for
> older TinkerPop versions and put them in a new Docker image. That would
> make the build and deployment certainly a bit more difficult as we can't
> simply take the build artifacts from the target directory for those
> older versions. We could of course download them as they are already
> deployed, but then we need a different Docker build and deployment for
> older versions than for the most recent one (since we can't download the
> artifacts for the most recent one from somewhere as they aren't deployed
> at that point).
>
> Am 23.02.2018 um 17:24 schrieb Daniel Kuppitz:
> > They would be static. We would checkout the release tag, build the image
> > and publish it. I guess he just said "new images for older versions"
> > because these images do not exist yet. But once they're there, nobody
> would
> > ever update them again.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> these might be dumb questions, but as everyone already knows, i'm not so
> >> smart about docker - could you summarize for me you would go back and
> >> publish new images for older versions? why couldn't those just stay
> static
> >> for a release version?
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Florian Hockmann <
> f...@florian-hockmann.de
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I suggest that we at first take the simplest approach and just offer
> >>> Docker images for the latest version. So we at least have some Docker
> >>> images.
> >>> Then we can handle publishing of new images for older versions as a
> >>> second step.
> >>>
> >>> Is everyone ok with that approach or do you suggest dealing with that
> >>> problem immediately from the start?
> >>>
> >>> Apart from that: I looked a bit on how we could integrate Docker into
> >>> our Maven tool chain and found two Maven plugins we could use. If
> anyone
> >>> can provide some input for the choice of a plugin then please do so in:
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1897
> >>>
> >>> Am 21.02.2018 um 16:09 schrieb Daniel Kuppitz:
> >>>> If you're just playing around, testing new stuff, etc. you'll always
> >> want
> >>>> to have the latest version. But if you do client support (or even just
> >>>> support on the mailing list) it's advantageous to have quick access to
> >>>> specific older version.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Daniel
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:55 AM, Stephen Mallette <
> >> spmalle...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>  Do we really need to redeploy images for older TinkerPop versions?
> >>>>> Wouldn't it be enough to simply provide a newer version for 3.2.z and
> >>>>> 3.3.z, respectively? Why could someone not update for example from
> >>> 3.2.6 to
> >>>>> 3.2.7?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> from someone who really doesn't know what people expect with docker,
> I
> >>>>> would think that we wouldn't go back to maintain old images anymore
> >>> than we
> >>>>> would go back and change an artifact in maven central. if you want a
> >>> better
> >>>>> docker experience then you would upgrade to the latest version
> >> TinkerPop
> >>>>> offered.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Florian Hockmann <
> >>> f...@florian-hockmann.de>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Looks like I didn't really think this through yesterday, but it
> >>> probably
> >>>>>> doesn't really make sense to transfer the existing Dockerfiles as
> >> they
> >>>>> only
> >>>>>> download the zip archives from our homepage and extract them. For
> >> this
> >>> to
> >>>>>> work, we of course already need those archives to be in place which
> >>> means
> >>>>>> that we can't deploy the Docker images together with the rest of
> >>>>> TinkerPop.
> >>>>>> So, I think that it makes more sense to create new Dockerfiles that
> >>> take
> >>>>>> the build artifacts from the Console and Server.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we'd somehow need to find a way to redeploy all images if
> we
> >>>>>> tweak/improve the Dockerfile in a way that makes sense to also
> >> redeploy
> >>>>>> prior images, and not just the latest releases.
> >>>>>> Do we really need to redeploy images for older TinkerPop versions?
> >>>>>> Wouldn't it be enough to simply provide a newer version for 3.2.z
> and
> >>>>>> 3.3.z, respectively? Why could someone not update for example from
> >>> 3.2.6
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>> 3.2.7?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anyhow, I just created a ticket for this:
> https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>> jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1897 so we can discuss the concrete
> >>> implementation
> >>>>>> over there.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>>>> Von: Jean-Baptiste Musso [mailto:jbmu...@gmail.com]
> >>>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Februar 2018 22:02
> >>>>>> An: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org
> >>>>>> Betreff: Re: [TinkerPop] Re: Docker images: gremlin-server and
> >>>>>> gremlin-console
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure, +1 on transferring the Dockerfile to TinkerPop. That could be
> >>> part
> >>>>>> of the current deployment process.
> >>>>>> I think we'd somehow need to find a way to redeploy all images if we
> >>>>>> tweak/improve the Dockerfile in a way that makes sense to also
> >> redeploy
> >>>>>> prior images, and not just the latest releases.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jean-Baptiste
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Florian Hockmann <
> >>>>> f...@florian-hockmann.de>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks to a ticket where someone mentioned that he uses Docker
> >> images
> >>>>>>> of the Gremlin Server (TINKERPOP-1893
> >>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1893>), I noticed
> >>>>>>> that there aren't any up-to-date Docker images for Gremlin Server
> or
> >>>>>>> Console on hub.docker.com:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The highest version for Gremlin Server is 3.3.0 from this image:
> >>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/bricaud/gremlin-server/
> >>>>>>> and for Gremlin Console it's still version 3.2.4 that Jean-Baptiste
> >>>>>>> mentioned in the first post of this thread:
> >>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/jbmusso/gremlin-console/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, I wanted to ask: Are there any updates on this?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can't we as a first step simply include the Docker images from
> >>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste into our main repo and integrate it into our usual
> >> build
> >>>>>>> and deployment process so we always release Docker images with each
> >>>>>>> release? (Assuming that Jean-Baptiste is willing to transfer the
> >>>>>>> images to TinkerPop.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We can still add more advanced features like an easier
> configuration
> >>>>>>> of things like REST vs WebSockets or loading of datasets later when
> >> we
> >>>>>>> have initial versions of both Docker images in place.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 05.07.2017 um 17:02 schrieb Stephen Mallette:
> >>>>>>>> Nice Josh - thanks for the update on that. Please keep us
> informed.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Josh Perryman <
> j...@experoinc.com
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I worked on this a little over the holiday weekend. I've got a
> >>>>>>>>> gremlin-console image based on OpenJDK:8 and one that uses the
> >>>>>>>>> Alpine version. They allow you to specify the TinkerPop version
> as
> >>>>>>>>> a command
> >>>>>>> line
> >>>>>>>>> argument and support anything that's available on
> >>>>>>>>> https://archive.apache.org/dist/tinkerpop/.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That was trivial, and not really of high value. I'm working on
> >>>>>>>>> gremlin-server images now. My goal is to have server images which
> >>>>>>>>> allow
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>> to specify:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>   + Version (if on https://archive.apache.org/dist/tinkerpop/)
> >>>>>>>>>   + Data set (any one included in the distribution)
> >>>>>>>>>   + Access protocol (WebSocket or REST)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The idea is that you can just start the image and have a local
> >>>>>>>>> running gremlin-server in any version, with some data loaded.
> This
> >>>>>>>>> could also be the basis for a gremlin-server microservice. I also
> >>>>>>>>> want to have one
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> has both console & server which is more suitable for training.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But I don't think that I'll have time to work through all of that
> >>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>> weeks, perhaps late July, or more likely in August. When I get
> >>>>>>>>> these to
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> usable point with legible instructions, I'll follow up with this
> >>>>>>>>> thread
> >>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>> coordinating with Apache and getting the Dockerfiles hosted
> >>>>> properly.
> >>>>>>>>> *Josh Perryman*
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> mobile: (713) 569-6533
> >>>>>>>>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/JoshPerryman> / *LinkedIn*
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Mallette
> >>>>>>>>> <spmalle...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I really don't know Docker too well so I can't really drive this
> >>>>> one.
> >>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>>>>> not sure I understand if what Apache is offering us is suitable
> >>>>>>>>>> for the needs TinkerPop has wrt Docker. Any volunteers willing
> to
> >>>>>>>>>> pick this up
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> drive this discussion forward?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Stephen Mallette <
> >>>>>>> spmalle...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> With help from Humbedooh aka Daniel Gruno, I've got in contact
> >>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> folks
> >>>>>>>>>>> at Apache Infrastructure regarding projects putting stuff on
> >>>>>>>>>>> Docker
> >>>>>>>>> Hub.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Here was the basic reply:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We do support the use of Docker Hub under the ASF banner:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/u/apache/ The policy for releases on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> there is still being worked out, but at this moment if you
> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a dockerfile/ repo we can add that to our org for automated
> >>>>>>>>>>>> building.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just file a ticket on the INFRA JIRA
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapi
> >>>>>>>>>>> dView=25&projectKey=INFRA
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and we can add that repo to the org.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is that helpful for what we're talking about here? Are there
> >>>>>>>>>>> other questions to ask?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Florian Hockmann <
> >>>>>>>>> f...@florian-hockmann.de
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think official images would be a very good idea as there
> >> exist
> >>>>>>>>>>>> currently a lot of images, especially for Gremlin Server.
> Users
> >>>>>>>>>> typically
> >>>>>>>>>>>> search for the official image or just take the image with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> most
> >>>>>>>>>> pulls.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Images published directly by TinkerPop would get the most
> >>>>>>>>>>>> attention
> >>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>>>>> users don't end up with some image that isn't actively
> >>>>> maintained.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Another advantage of integrating the images in TinkerPop would
> >>>>>>>>> probably
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be that the deployment could be integrated into TinkerPop's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> usual
> >>>>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cycle. So new images can be published directly for each new
> >>>>>> version.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, 6. Juni 2017 18:39:09 UTC+2 schrieb Stephen
> >>>>> Mallette:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be interesting to anyone for TinkerPop to have an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> official docker image?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Benjamin Ricaud <
> >>>>>>>>> benjami...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Jean-Baptiste,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have also done a container for the gremlin-server 3.2.4,
> >>>>>>>>> configured
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be used with gremlin-python:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/bricaud/gremlin-server/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I noticed that you do not need the IP trick for the server
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be accessed. If you set
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> host: 0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your gremlin-conf.yaml, (and open the port with -p
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8182:8182)
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can access the server.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (see my conf files on the github repo).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Benjamin
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le jeudi 1 juin 2017 00:37:07 UTC+2, Jean-Baptiste Musso a
> >>>>> écrit
> >>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear TinkerPop,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I published a couple automatically built Docker images for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gremlin-server and gremlin-console (current image tags:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest,
> >>>>>>>>>> 3.2.4, 3.2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 3):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/jbmusso/gremlin-server/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/jbmusso/gremlin-console/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I built these because I needed to quickly start different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations of gremlin-server when developing the
> >>>>>>>>>> gremlin-javascript
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Source repository:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jbmusso/docker-tinkerpop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Start gremlin-server with:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> docker run -p 8182:8182 jbmusso/gremlin-server:3.2.4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Defaults to conf/gremlin-server.yaml within that container,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>> pass
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another .yaml file:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> docker run -p 8182:8182 jbmusso/gremlin-server:3.2.4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conf/gremlin-server-modern.yaml
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mounting your own config .yaml file with docker run -v
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument
> >>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also work (untested).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can play with the console this way (make sure you run
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
> >>>>>>>>>> -it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flags so Docker don't quit and actually lets you type
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commands
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shell):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> docker run -it jbmusso/gremlin-console:3.2.4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to execute a file located on your host from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within a gremin-console container (the following assumes
> >> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foobar.groovy
> >>>>>>>>>> file
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists in your $HOME dir):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> docker run -it -v ~/foobar.groovy:/script/foobar.groovy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jbmusso/gremlin-console:3.2.4 -e /script/foobar.groovy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "Gremlin-users" group.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it,
> >>>>>>>>> send
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an email to gremlin-user...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
> >>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/ms
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gid/gremlin-users/c8141999-2e9d-4fd3-a763-5630866e5c6b%
> 40goo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> glegroups.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gremlin-users/c8141999-
> >>>>>>>>>> 2e9d-4fd3-a763-5630866e5c6b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=
> >>>>>>>>>> email&utm_source=footer>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Google
> >>>>>>>>>> Groups
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Gremlin-users" group.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it,
> >>>>>>> send
> >>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> email to gremlin-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
> >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/ms
> >>>>>>>>>>>> gid/gremlin-users/8cf01027-2ef6-48d5-bc2a-34facea9c0f8%40
> >>>>>>>>>> googlegroups.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gremlin-users/8cf01027-
> >>>>>>>>>> 2ef6-48d5-bc2a-34facea9c0f8%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=
> >>>>>>>>>> email&utm_source=footer>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
>

Reply via email to