[DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

clebertsuconic
It's just an idea a had for a while... and I couldn't find a way to
implement it.

It would be nice if we could create an artemis server with a --docker
option...

./artemis create --docker ... etc..

From the little I researched, docker offers the image ready, etc... so I'm
not sure it makes sense. but if it did it would be a cool feature...


Does anyone have any idea on how that could be done? and if that makes
sense or not?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

vromero
It is too environment dependant and it would end up copying tons of
paramenters from docker.

However, having an official docker file and docker image published in the
dockerhub would greatly help others too run servers or build their own
customizations on top of it.

I'm happy to work on it if that is fine.


2015-09-23 13:28 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:

> It's just an idea a had for a while... and I couldn't find a way to
> implement it.
>
> It would be nice if we could create an artemis server with a --docker
> option...
>
> ./artemis create --docker ... etc..
>
> From the little I researched, docker offers the image ready, etc... so I'm
> not sure it makes sense. but if it did it would be a cool feature...
>
>
> Does anyone have any idea on how that could be done? and if that makes
> sense or not?
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

clebertsuconic
but if that was automated through the CLI, maybe it would make it easier
for using docker?


I was thinking of a way to create the docker image along with other
parameters passed on the build...

but if the only way is the official image.. then I guess that's the way to
go... we will need some doc around on how to use docker.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Victor Romero <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> It is too environment dependant and it would end up copying tons of
> paramenters from docker.
>
> However, having an official docker file and docker image published in the
> dockerhub would greatly help others too run servers or build their own
> customizations on top of it.
>
> I'm happy to work on it if that is fine.
>
>
> 2015-09-23 13:28 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:
>
> > It's just an idea a had for a while... and I couldn't find a way to
> > implement it.
> >
> > It would be nice if we could create an artemis server with a --docker
> > option...
> >
> > ./artemis create --docker ... etc..
> >
> > From the little I researched, docker offers the image ready, etc... so
> I'm
> > not sure it makes sense. but if it did it would be a cool feature...
> >
> >
> > Does anyone have any idea on how that could be done? and if that makes
> > sense or not?
> >
>



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by vromero
> I'm happy to work on it if that is fine.


that would be awesome actually.. I was just asking if it wouldn't make
sense to have the creation autoamted by the cli somehow.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

vromero
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
> but if that was automated through the CLI, maybe it would make it easier
> for using docker?

If it is just about creating the dockerfile it is definitely feasible but
it would probably be rather unexpected for users and specially for
dockerhub if we create CI for an image.

I'll come back with something early next week.

2015-09-23 14:06 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:

> but if that was automated through the CLI, maybe it would make it easier
> for using docker?
>
>
> I was thinking of a way to create the docker image along with other
> parameters passed on the build...
>
> but if the only way is the official image.. then I guess that's the way to
> go... we will need some doc around on how to use docker.
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Victor Romero <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > It is too environment dependant and it would end up copying tons of
> > paramenters from docker.
> >
> > However, having an official docker file and docker image published in the
> > dockerhub would greatly help others too run servers or build their own
> > customizations on top of it.
> >
> > I'm happy to work on it if that is fine.
> >
> >
> > 2015-09-23 13:28 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > It's just an idea a had for a while... and I couldn't find a way to
> > > implement it.
> > >
> > > It would be nice if we could create an artemis server with a --docker
> > > option...
> > >
> > > ./artemis create --docker ... etc..
> > >
> > > From the little I researched, docker offers the image ready, etc... so
> > I'm
> > > not sure it makes sense. but if it did it would be a cool feature...
> > >
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any idea on how that could be done? and if that makes
> > > sense or not?
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

vromero
I've been playing with Artemis and docker over the weekend.

I've created images for 1.0.0 and 1.1.0, see vromero/activemq-artemis
<https://hub.docker.com/r/vromero/activemq-artemis/>. If you have docker
installed you can try them with:

docker run -it vromero/activemq-artemis
or
docker run -it vromero/activemq-artemis:1.0.0

Clebert, regarding your point I'm actually taking back what I said before.

After this I realised there is value in helping to shift highly
personalized instances into docker images. I'm afraid I can't share a clear
proposal yet but just my thoughts.

I'm thinking in a base docker image that contains everything but the
instance directory ifself. Then there are a few options:

   - Expect the user to *mount* (this is the -v parament in docker) the
   instance directory into the image.
   - Completely external tool (a docker image itself that can be downloaded
   and run in a single command or perhaps even something that can be curl-ed)
   or sitting in the instance that creates a dockerfile, that the user could
   use to create the image
   - Same tool, that creates the actual docker image rather than the
   dockerfile (prevents the user to do further customization but its more
   straight forward to use).

Personally I lend a bit torwards a docker image that knows how to create
both a dockerfile and a dockerimage from a given instance. The reason is
not to push into the distribution things that doesn't necessarily have to
live there, specially given that the docker toolset have to be installed
anyways. This would perhaps look something like:

    docker run --rm -v /mylocalinstance:/instance
activemq/artemis-docker-builder build-image

What do you think? Would perhaps make more sense to have someting in a jar
than can be invoked from bash/cmd?


2015-09-23 15:29 GMT-07:00 Victor Romero <[hidden email]>:

> > but if that was automated through the CLI, maybe it would make it easier
> > for using docker?
>
> If it is just about creating the dockerfile it is definitely feasible but
> it would probably be rather unexpected for users and specially for
> dockerhub if we create CI for an image.
>
> I'll come back with something early next week.
>
> 2015-09-23 14:06 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:
>
>> but if that was automated through the CLI, maybe it would make it easier
>> for using docker?
>>
>>
>> I was thinking of a way to create the docker image along with other
>> parameters passed on the build...
>>
>> but if the only way is the official image.. then I guess that's the way to
>> go... we will need some doc around on how to use docker.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Victor Romero <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > It is too environment dependant and it would end up copying tons of
>> > paramenters from docker.
>> >
>> > However, having an official docker file and docker image published in
>> the
>> > dockerhub would greatly help others too run servers or build their own
>> > customizations on top of it.
>> >
>> > I'm happy to work on it if that is fine.
>> >
>> >
>> > 2015-09-23 13:28 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:
>> >
>> > > It's just an idea a had for a while... and I couldn't find a way to
>> > > implement it.
>> > >
>> > > It would be nice if we could create an artemis server with a --docker
>> > > option...
>> > >
>> > > ./artemis create --docker ... etc..
>> > >
>> > > From the little I researched, docker offers the image ready, etc... so
>> > I'm
>> > > not sure it makes sense. but if it did it would be a cool feature...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Does anyone have any idea on how that could be done? and if that makes
>> > > sense or not?
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

clebertsuconic
Sorry, it took me a while to digest this

> What do you think? Would perhaps make more sense to have someting in a jar
than can be invoked from bash/cmd?


Maybe I'm getting confused because I would need more time with docker...

We have the ./artemis create method, I would prefer to have things over
there.. as it makes simpler and more accessible to users...


If someone did anything around it, maybe we could then import it on the CLI
to make it simpler...

Maybe part of create wouldn't make sense.. but maybe a docker CLI... makes
more sense maybe.


./artemis docker ... options...


which is a simple thing to be implemented through OUR CLI package.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

vromero
Llet me try to clarify how docker works and which are its expectations:

There are three outstanding moving pieces in docker:

   - *Docker container*, an instance of a docker image.
   - *Docker images* are *self contained images* of a piece of software,
   its dependencies, end everything else down to the operating system.
   - *DockerFiles*, the recipe to generate a docker image.

Two important best practices
<https://docs.docker.com/articles/dockerfile_best-practices/> regarding
creation of containers are:

   - Containers should be ephemeral, it can be stopped and destroyed and a
   new one built and put in place with an absolute minimum of set-up and
   configuration.
   - Run only one process per container.

Docker containers are customized tipically in two ways:

   - Changing some simple value, like the number of threads of a listener:
   with a passed environment property, i.e: -e HTTP_LISTENERS=64
   - Changing actual files/directories both for input/output from/to the
   image: with mounted volumes
   <https://docs.docker.com/userguide/dockervolumes/>. An example of out
   would be mounting a logs directory and an example for input, we could say,
   mounting the apps directory of tomcat, i.e: -v /webapp training/webapp

There is a repository of docker images, similar to what maven central is
for maven, and this is dockerhub <https://hub.docker.com/>. The docker
command like has full support for it. Software providers can provide an
official docker image just like in maven central. On example could be the
official RabbitMQ <https://hub.docker.com/_/rabbitmq/> docker image that
has been there for a while. Of course users do prefer official images but
they tipically coexist with a bunch of other community images.

If we don't go creative, the tipical case for a docker image is just an
image that allows configuration to some extent using environment properties
and some volumes mounted. This is exactly what I tried to accomplish the
image <https://hub.docker.com/r/vromero/activemq-artemis/> I recently
uploaded to dockerhub.

*All this said, is there space for improvement?*

I'm afraid I kind of disagree with you in believeing there is value on
the artemis
create phase. There is very little  customization at that point and very
little to no value at all would be added by generating a docker image at
this phase, i.e: Why not just have an official docker image published in
dockerhub that would have the very same effect with much less tooling and
non standard procedures involved?

*What about creating an image of an already customized instance?*

This would be having a base docker image all ready except for the artemis
intance, and then create an image with the instance on top of it.

I think there is some value on this but to be completely honest, this goes
against the common use of docker. The software and the very basic
configuration tipically reside on the image, and the hard core
configuration comes in the form of a mount point.

I'm on the fence around this one, perhaps there is some value, but at this
point I would rather say that it's better to not to go against the flow and
do something that is considered incorrect by the docker community.

*What would I personally do (docker related) with artemis:*

Personally I would create one or two images, the one I already created and
potentially another one customized for clustering.

I would pack this image, and tomcat and one of the artemis examples and
create a docker compose <https://docs.docker.com/compose/> image.

Then I would publish this as official image
<https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/tree/master/library> to
dockerhub (I imagine this is not easy bureocracy wise) just like rabbit,
ubuntu, wordpress, mariadb and others and I would create oficial
documentation along with the rest of the documentation.

If someone has a customized artemis instance that he wants to shift to
docker, he can just create a docker container from the official image and
mount there the etc directory.

This is just a personal oppinion, I but hope it helps.








2015-09-30 10:58 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:

> Sorry, it took me a while to digest this
>
> > What do you think? Would perhaps make more sense to have someting in a
> jar
> than can be invoked from bash/cmd?
>
>
> Maybe I'm getting confused because I would need more time with docker...
>
> We have the ./artemis create method, I would prefer to have things over
> there.. as it makes simpler and more accessible to users...
>
>
> If someone did anything around it, maybe we could then import it on the CLI
> to make it simpler...
>
> Maybe part of create wouldn't make sense.. but maybe a docker CLI... makes
> more sense maybe.
>
>
> ./artemis docker ... options...
>
>
> which is a simple thing to be implemented through OUR CLI package.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

chirino
At best having a 'create --docker' command which customizes the
instance configuration to be more docker friendly might be as good as
it gets.  For example 'create --docker' might create a config which
tries to read more settings from the env vars.  It could also setup
logging so it all goes to std out instead of to files.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Victor Romero <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Llet me try to clarify how docker works and which are its expectations:
>
> There are three outstanding moving pieces in docker:
>
>    - *Docker container*, an instance of a docker image.
>    - *Docker images* are *self contained images* of a piece of software,
>    its dependencies, end everything else down to the operating system.
>    - *DockerFiles*, the recipe to generate a docker image.
>
> Two important best practices
> <https://docs.docker.com/articles/dockerfile_best-practices/> regarding
> creation of containers are:
>
>    - Containers should be ephemeral, it can be stopped and destroyed and a
>    new one built and put in place with an absolute minimum of set-up and
>    configuration.
>    - Run only one process per container.
>
> Docker containers are customized tipically in two ways:
>
>    - Changing some simple value, like the number of threads of a listener:
>    with a passed environment property, i.e: -e HTTP_LISTENERS=64
>    - Changing actual files/directories both for input/output from/to the
>    image: with mounted volumes
>    <https://docs.docker.com/userguide/dockervolumes/>. An example of out
>    would be mounting a logs directory and an example for input, we could say,
>    mounting the apps directory of tomcat, i.e: -v /webapp training/webapp
>
> There is a repository of docker images, similar to what maven central is
> for maven, and this is dockerhub <https://hub.docker.com/>. The docker
> command like has full support for it. Software providers can provide an
> official docker image just like in maven central. On example could be the
> official RabbitMQ <https://hub.docker.com/_/rabbitmq/> docker image that
> has been there for a while. Of course users do prefer official images but
> they tipically coexist with a bunch of other community images.
>
> If we don't go creative, the tipical case for a docker image is just an
> image that allows configuration to some extent using environment properties
> and some volumes mounted. This is exactly what I tried to accomplish the
> image <https://hub.docker.com/r/vromero/activemq-artemis/> I recently
> uploaded to dockerhub.
>
> *All this said, is there space for improvement?*
>
> I'm afraid I kind of disagree with you in believeing there is value on
> the artemis
> create phase. There is very little  customization at that point and very
> little to no value at all would be added by generating a docker image at
> this phase, i.e: Why not just have an official docker image published in
> dockerhub that would have the very same effect with much less tooling and
> non standard procedures involved?
>
> *What about creating an image of an already customized instance?*
>
> This would be having a base docker image all ready except for the artemis
> intance, and then create an image with the instance on top of it.
>
> I think there is some value on this but to be completely honest, this goes
> against the common use of docker. The software and the very basic
> configuration tipically reside on the image, and the hard core
> configuration comes in the form of a mount point.
>
> I'm on the fence around this one, perhaps there is some value, but at this
> point I would rather say that it's better to not to go against the flow and
> do something that is considered incorrect by the docker community.
>
> *What would I personally do (docker related) with artemis:*
>
> Personally I would create one or two images, the one I already created and
> potentially another one customized for clustering.
>
> I would pack this image, and tomcat and one of the artemis examples and
> create a docker compose <https://docs.docker.com/compose/> image.
>
> Then I would publish this as official image
> <https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/tree/master/library> to
> dockerhub (I imagine this is not easy bureocracy wise) just like rabbit,
> ubuntu, wordpress, mariadb and others and I would create oficial
> documentation along with the rest of the documentation.
>
> If someone has a customized artemis instance that he wants to shift to
> docker, he can just create a docker container from the official image and
> mount there the etc directory.
>
> This is just a personal oppinion, I but hope it helps.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015-09-30 10:58 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Sorry, it took me a while to digest this
>>
>> > What do you think? Would perhaps make more sense to have someting in a
>> jar
>> than can be invoked from bash/cmd?
>>
>>
>> Maybe I'm getting confused because I would need more time with docker...
>>
>> We have the ./artemis create method, I would prefer to have things over
>> there.. as it makes simpler and more accessible to users...
>>
>>
>> If someone did anything around it, maybe we could then import it on the CLI
>> to make it simpler...
>>
>> Maybe part of create wouldn't make sense.. but maybe a docker CLI... makes
>> more sense maybe.
>>
>>
>> ./artemis docker ... options...
>>
>>
>> which is a simple thing to be implemented through OUR CLI package.
>>



--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by vromero
I'm afraid I kind of disagree with you in believeing there is value on

> the artemis
> create phase. There is very little  customization at that point and very
> little to no value at all would be added by generating a docker image at
> this phase, i.e: Why not just have an official docker image published in
> dockerhub that would have the very same effect with much less tooling and
> non standard procedures involved?
>
>

Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations being
done as part of ./artemis create...

For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
security... and we can even add more options to it.

So, adding a --docker would allow users to create a very customized version
of a docker instance. And the maven plugins we created as part of the
examples on 1.1.0 would get all the benefit of such a new feature.


> *What about creating an image of an already customized instance?*
>
>
you could have a lot of customizations..

>
> Personally I would create one or two images, the one I already created and
> potentially another one customized for clustering.
>
>
I don't think it would be just one or two
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

clebertsuconic
These are the options that can be part of a create:

https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I'm afraid I kind of disagree with you in believeing there is value on
>
>> the artemis
>> create phase. There is very little  customization at that point and very
>> little to no value at all would be added by generating a docker image at
>> this phase, i.e: Why not just have an official docker image published in
>> dockerhub that would have the very same effect with much less tooling and
>> non standard procedures involved?
>>
>>
>
> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations being
> done as part of ./artemis create...
>
> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
> security... and we can even add more options to it.
>
> So, adding a --docker would allow users to create a very customized
> version of a docker instance. And the maven plugins we created as part of
> the examples on 1.1.0 would get all the benefit of such a new feature.
>
>
>> *What about creating an image of an already customized instance?*
>>
>>
> you could have a lot of customizations..
>
>>
>> Personally I would create one or two images, the one I already created and
>> potentially another one customized for clustering.
>>
>>
> I don't think it would be just one or two
>



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

andytaylor
I don't see the point of having lots of different images and passing in
variables to add to the configuration can also get a bit clunky.

I would have 1 or 2 images maybe standalone and clustered and allow the
configuration files location to be passed in when the image is run,
something like

docker run --name my-artemis -e ARTEMIS_CONF=somewhere else


On 01/10/15 14:00, Clebert Suconic wrote:

> These are the options that can be part of a create:
>
> https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid I kind of disagree with you in believeing there is value on
>>
>>> the artemis
>>> create phase. There is very little  customization at that point and very
>>> little to no value at all would be added by generating a docker image at
>>> this phase, i.e: Why not just have an official docker image published in
>>> dockerhub that would have the very same effect with much less tooling and
>>> non standard procedures involved?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations being
>> done as part of ./artemis create...
>>
>> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
>> security... and we can even add more options to it.
>>
>> So, adding a --docker would allow users to create a very customized
>> version of a docker instance. And the maven plugins we created as part of
>> the examples on 1.1.0 would get all the benefit of such a new feature.
>>
>>
>>> *What about creating an image of an already customized instance?*
>>>
>>>
>> you could have a lot of customizations..
>>
>>>
>>> Personally I would create one or two images, the one I already created and
>>> potentially another one customized for clustering.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think it would be just one or two
>>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

clebertsuconic
What about this, we provide the official image with sensible defaults...

and have a --docker option on artemis create to extend the image like you
said?


the user would just download the image...

/artemis create --docker <image-name> could then extend the image by
externalizing the configuration? ... we could create scripts to start the
image with the external configurations..




Would that make sense?

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't see the point of having lots of different images and passing in
> variables to add to the configuration can also get a bit clunky.
>
> I would have 1 or 2 images maybe standalone and clustered and allow the
> configuration files location to be passed in when the image is run,
> something like
>
> docker run --name my-artemis -e ARTEMIS_CONF=somewhere else
>
>
>
> On 01/10/15 14:00, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
>> These are the options that can be part of a create:
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm afraid I kind of disagree with you in believeing there is value on
>>>
>>> the artemis
>>>> create phase. There is very little  customization at that point and very
>>>> little to no value at all would be added by generating a docker image at
>>>> this phase, i.e: Why not just have an official docker image published in
>>>> dockerhub that would have the very same effect with much less tooling
>>>> and
>>>> non standard procedures involved?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations being
>>> done as part of ./artemis create...
>>>
>>> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
>>> security... and we can even add more options to it.
>>>
>>> So, adding a --docker would allow users to create a very customized
>>> version of a docker instance. And the maven plugins we created as part of
>>> the examples on 1.1.0 would get all the benefit of such a new feature.
>>>
>>>
>>> *What about creating an image of an already customized instance?*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you could have a lot of customizations..
>>>
>>>
>>>> Personally I would create one or two images, the one I already created
>>>> and
>>>> potentially another one customized for clustering.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it would be just one or two
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>


--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

vromero
> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations being
> done as part of ./artemis create...

>For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
>security... and we can even add more options to it.

I see, the ones you mention are actually covered in my previous example:

   - clustered v non clustered would be two different images published to
   dockerhub.
   - HTTP PORTS, ports. Ports configuration is irrelevant in docker, given
   that images are single process its unlikely there will be port collision
   and ports are then exported from the container to the docker host with -P
   (that will use random ports) or -p that will use manually picked ports.
   - Users can be configured in place just as per my published example
   <https://hub.docker.com/r/vromero/activemq-artemis/> (-e
   ARTEMIS_USER=myuser -e ARTEMIS_PASSWORD=otherpassword).

The rest you share in gist
<https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181> can be
definitely converted to parameters or considered complex configuration to
be mounted (this is exactly what the nginx image
<https://hub.docker.com/_/nginx/> does for example).

Summarizing:

> What about this, we provide the official image with sensible defaults...

  Agree at 100% with this. It might be one or perhaps two depending how
clean is configure clustering with docker params.

>and have a --docker option on artemis create to extend the image like you
said?

  Here I'm just in doubt, Artemis would be the first one doing something
like this (and therefor users won't even expect it) plus it might fall in a
gray area between using the standard image with perhaps one or to
parameters and using the standard image mounting the etc directory with
complex configuration. Effectively it would be promoting the creation of an
image per every possible configuration rather than a single configurable
image, and that would be against the docker philosophy itself.

  But again, I don't really know, I'd love to hear other opinions.


2015-10-01 6:48 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:

> What about this, we provide the official image with sensible defaults...
>
> and have a --docker option on artemis create to extend the image like you
> said?
>
>
> the user would just download the image...
>
> /artemis create --docker <image-name> could then extend the image by
> externalizing the configuration? ... we could create scripts to start the
> image with the external configurations..
>
>
>
>
> Would that make sense?
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't see the point of having lots of different images and passing in
> > variables to add to the configuration can also get a bit clunky.
> >
> > I would have 1 or 2 images maybe standalone and clustered and allow the
> > configuration files location to be passed in when the image is run,
> > something like
> >
> > docker run --name my-artemis -e ARTEMIS_CONF=somewhere else
> >
> >
> >
> > On 01/10/15 14:00, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> >
> >> These are the options that can be part of a create:
> >>
> >> https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Clebert Suconic <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm afraid I kind of disagree with you in believeing there is value on
> >>>
> >>> the artemis
> >>>> create phase. There is very little  customization at that point and
> very
> >>>> little to no value at all would be added by generating a docker image
> at
> >>>> this phase, i.e: Why not just have an official docker image published
> in
> >>>> dockerhub that would have the very same effect with much less tooling
> >>>> and
> >>>> non standard procedures involved?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations
> being
> >>> done as part of ./artemis create...
> >>>
> >>> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
> >>> security... and we can even add more options to it.
> >>>
> >>> So, adding a --docker would allow users to create a very customized
> >>> version of a docker instance. And the maven plugins we created as part
> of
> >>> the examples on 1.1.0 would get all the benefit of such a new feature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *What about creating an image of an already customized instance?*
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> you could have a lot of customizations..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Personally I would create one or two images, the one I already created
> >>>> and
> >>>> potentially another one customized for clustering.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think it would be just one or two
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

andytaylor
On 01/10/15 20:52, Victor Romero wrote:

>> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations being
>> done as part of ./artemis create...
>
>> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
>> security... and we can even add more options to it.
>
> I see, the ones you mention are actually covered in my previous example:
>
>     - clustered v non clustered would be two different images published to
>     dockerhub.
>     - HTTP PORTS, ports. Ports configuration is irrelevant in docker, given
>     that images are single process its unlikely there will be port collision
>     and ports are then exported from the container to the docker host with -P
>     (that will use random ports) or -p that will use manually picked ports.
>     - Users can be configured in place just as per my published example
>     <https://hub.docker.com/r/vromero/activemq-artemis/> (-e
>     ARTEMIS_USER=myuser -e ARTEMIS_PASSWORD=otherpassword).
>
> The rest you share in gist
> <https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181> can be
> definitely converted to parameters or considered complex configuration to
> be mounted (this is exactly what the nginx image
> <https://hub.docker.com/_/nginx/> does for example).
>
> Summarizing:
>
>> What about this, we provide the official image with sensible defaults...
>
>    Agree at 100% with this. It might be one or perhaps two depending how
> clean is configure clustering with docker params.
>
>> and have a --docker option on artemis create to extend the image like you
> said?
>
>    Here I'm just in doubt, Artemis would be the first one doing something
> like this (and therefor users won't even expect it) plus it might fall in a
> gray area between using the standard image with perhaps one or to
> parameters and using the standard image mounting the etc directory with
> complex configuration. Effectively it would be promoting the creation of an
> image per every possible configuration rather than a single configurable
> image, and that would be against the docker philosophy itself.
>
>    But again, I don't really know, I'd love to hear other opinions.
I agree, I dont think we need a --docker option, I think we should
provide some official docker images that have a basic amount of
configuration options and the option to mount external configuration.
People can extend these images if they need to add anything further.

>
>
> 2015-10-01 6:48 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:
>
>> What about this, we provide the official image with sensible defaults...
>>
>> and have a --docker option on artemis create to extend the image like you
>> said?
>>
>>
>> the user would just download the image...
>>
>> /artemis create --docker <image-name> could then extend the image by
>> externalizing the configuration? ... we could create scripts to start the
>> image with the external configurations..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Would that make sense?
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see the point of having lots of different images and passing in
>>> variables to add to the configuration can also get a bit clunky.
>>>
>>> I would have 1 or 2 images maybe standalone and clustered and allow the
>>> configuration files location to be passed in when the image is run,
>>> something like
>>>
>>> docker run --name my-artemis -e ARTEMIS_CONF=somewhere else
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/10/15 14:00, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>>
>>>> These are the options that can be part of a create:
>>>>
>>>> https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Clebert Suconic <
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid I kind of disagree with you in believeing there is value on
>>>>>
>>>>> the artemis
>>>>>> create phase. There is very little  customization at that point and
>> very
>>>>>> little to no value at all would be added by generating a docker image
>> at
>>>>>> this phase, i.e: Why not just have an official docker image published
>> in
>>>>>> dockerhub that would have the very same effect with much less tooling
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> non standard procedures involved?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations
>> being
>>>>> done as part of ./artemis create...
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
>>>>> security... and we can even add more options to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, adding a --docker would allow users to create a very customized
>>>>> version of a docker instance. And the maven plugins we created as part
>> of
>>>>> the examples on 1.1.0 would get all the benefit of such a new feature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *What about creating an image of an already customized instance?*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you could have a lot of customizations..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I would create one or two images, the one I already created
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> potentially another one customized for clustering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think it would be just one or two
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

Claus Ibsen
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 01/10/15 20:52, Victor Romero wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations being
>>> done as part of ./artemis create...
>>
>>
>>> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
>>> security... and we can even add more options to it.
>>
>>
>> I see, the ones you mention are actually covered in my previous example:
>>
>>     - clustered v non clustered would be two different images published to
>>     dockerhub.
>>     - HTTP PORTS, ports. Ports configuration is irrelevant in docker,
>> given
>>     that images are single process its unlikely there will be port
>> collision
>>     and ports are then exported from the container to the docker host with
>> -P
>>     (that will use random ports) or -p that will use manually picked
>> ports.
>>     - Users can be configured in place just as per my published example
>>     <https://hub.docker.com/r/vromero/activemq-artemis/> (-e
>>     ARTEMIS_USER=myuser -e ARTEMIS_PASSWORD=otherpassword).
>>
>> The rest you share in gist
>> <https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181> can be
>> definitely converted to parameters or considered complex configuration to
>> be mounted (this is exactly what the nginx image
>> <https://hub.docker.com/_/nginx/> does for example).
>>
>> Summarizing:
>>
>>> What about this, we provide the official image with sensible defaults...
>>
>>
>>    Agree at 100% with this. It might be one or perhaps two depending how
>> clean is configure clustering with docker params.
>>
>>> and have a --docker option on artemis create to extend the image like you
>>
>> said?
>>
>>    Here I'm just in doubt, Artemis would be the first one doing something
>> like this (and therefor users won't even expect it) plus it might fall in
>> a
>> gray area between using the standard image with perhaps one or to
>> parameters and using the standard image mounting the etc directory with
>> complex configuration. Effectively it would be promoting the creation of
>> an
>> image per every possible configuration rather than a single configurable
>> image, and that would be against the docker philosophy itself.
>>
>>    But again, I don't really know, I'd love to hear other opinions.
>
> I agree, I dont think we need a --docker option, I think we should provide
> some official docker images that have a basic amount of configuration
> options and the option to mount external configuration. People can extend
> these images if they need to add anything further.
>

+1 for official docker image and have it configurable using ENV
variables and/or other ways.



>>
>>
>> 2015-10-01 6:48 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>> What about this, we provide the official image with sensible defaults...
>>>
>>> and have a --docker option on artemis create to extend the image like you
>>> said?
>>>
>>>
>>> the user would just download the image...
>>>
>>> /artemis create --docker <image-name> could then extend the image by
>>> externalizing the configuration? ... we could create scripts to start the
>>> image with the external configurations..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Would that make sense?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see the point of having lots of different images and passing in
>>>> variables to add to the configuration can also get a bit clunky.
>>>>
>>>> I would have 1 or 2 images maybe standalone and clustered and allow the
>>>> configuration files location to be passed in when the image is run,
>>>> something like
>>>>
>>>> docker run --name my-artemis -e ARTEMIS_CONF=somewhere else
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/10/15 14:00, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> These are the options that can be part of a create:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Clebert Suconic <
>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid I kind of disagree with you in believeing there is value on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the artemis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> create phase. There is very little  customization at that point and
>>>
>>> very
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> little to no value at all would be added by generating a docker image
>>>
>>> at
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this phase, i.e: Why not just have an official docker image published
>>>
>>> in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dockerhub that would have the very same effect with much less tooling
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> non standard procedures involved?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations
>>>
>>> being
>>>>>>
>>>>>> done as part of ./artemis create...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
>>>>>> security... and we can even add more options to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, adding a --docker would allow users to create a very customized
>>>>>> version of a docker instance. And the maven plugins we created as part
>>>
>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the examples on 1.1.0 would get all the benefit of such a new feature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *What about creating an image of an already customized instance?*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you could have a lot of customizations..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally I would create one or two images, the one I already
>>>>>>> created
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> potentially another one customized for clustering.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think it would be just one or two
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>
>>
>



--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2nd edition:
https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

vromero
Hi all,
Apologies for resurrecting old thread.

As result of our conversations here I published 6 months ago a docker image
<https://hub.docker.com/r/vromero/activemq-artemis/> for Artemis 1.0, 1.1
and 1.2 (as they were released).

In this time there have been > 150 installations, 1 pull request, 1
stackoverflow and no complains.

I'd like to contribute it for an official artemis docker image, probably in
the form of its own github repo (so I don't think a PR would be a fit) +
bespoke documentation in the manual. I would be happy to maintain it just
as I've been doing with the unofficial version.

I'd love to hear if a separate repo is something acceptable, and any other
opinions regarding this.

Thanks

El vie., 2 oct. 2015 a las 1:05, Claus Ibsen (<[hidden email]>)
escribió:

> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On 01/10/15 20:52, Victor Romero wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations
> being
> >>> done as part of ./artemis create...
> >>
> >>
> >>> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
> >>> security... and we can even add more options to it.
> >>
> >>
> >> I see, the ones you mention are actually covered in my previous example:
> >>
> >>     - clustered v non clustered would be two different images published
> to
> >>     dockerhub.
> >>     - HTTP PORTS, ports. Ports configuration is irrelevant in docker,
> >> given
> >>     that images are single process its unlikely there will be port
> >> collision
> >>     and ports are then exported from the container to the docker host
> with
> >> -P
> >>     (that will use random ports) or -p that will use manually picked
> >> ports.
> >>     - Users can be configured in place just as per my published example
> >>     <https://hub.docker.com/r/vromero/activemq-artemis/> (-e
> >>     ARTEMIS_USER=myuser -e ARTEMIS_PASSWORD=otherpassword).
> >>
> >> The rest you share in gist
> >> <https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181> can be
> >> definitely converted to parameters or considered complex configuration
> to
> >> be mounted (this is exactly what the nginx image
> >> <https://hub.docker.com/_/nginx/> does for example).
> >>
> >> Summarizing:
> >>
> >>> What about this, we provide the official image with sensible
> defaults...
> >>
> >>
> >>    Agree at 100% with this. It might be one or perhaps two depending how
> >> clean is configure clustering with docker params.
> >>
> >>> and have a --docker option on artemis create to extend the image like
> you
> >>
> >> said?
> >>
> >>    Here I'm just in doubt, Artemis would be the first one doing
> something
> >> like this (and therefor users won't even expect it) plus it might fall
> in
> >> a
> >> gray area between using the standard image with perhaps one or to
> >> parameters and using the standard image mounting the etc directory with
> >> complex configuration. Effectively it would be promoting the creation of
> >> an
> >> image per every possible configuration rather than a single configurable
> >> image, and that would be against the docker philosophy itself.
> >>
> >>    But again, I don't really know, I'd love to hear other opinions.
> >
> > I agree, I dont think we need a --docker option, I think we should
> provide
> > some official docker images that have a basic amount of configuration
> > options and the option to mount external configuration. People can extend
> > these images if they need to add anything further.
> >
>
> +1 for official docker image and have it configurable using ENV
> variables and/or other ways.
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2015-10-01 6:48 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >>> What about this, we provide the official image with sensible
> defaults...
> >>>
> >>> and have a --docker option on artemis create to extend the image like
> you
> >>> said?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> the user would just download the image...
> >>>
> >>> /artemis create --docker <image-name> could then extend the image by
> >>> externalizing the configuration? ... we could create scripts to start
> the
> >>> image with the external configurations..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Would that make sense?
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I don't see the point of having lots of different images and passing
> in
> >>>> variables to add to the configuration can also get a bit clunky.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would have 1 or 2 images maybe standalone and clustered and allow
> the
> >>>> configuration files location to be passed in when the image is run,
> >>>> something like
> >>>>
> >>>> docker run --name my-artemis -e ARTEMIS_CONF=somewhere else
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 01/10/15 14:00, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> These are the options that can be part of a create:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Clebert Suconic <
> >>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm afraid I kind of disagree with you in believeing there is value
> on
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the artemis
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> create phase. There is very little  customization at that point and
> >>>
> >>> very
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> little to no value at all would be added by generating a docker
> image
> >>>
> >>> at
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> this phase, i.e: Why not just have an official docker image
> published
> >>>
> >>> in
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> dockerhub that would have the very same effect with much less
> tooling
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> non standard procedures involved?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations
> >>>
> >>> being
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> done as part of ./artemis create...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
> >>>>>> security... and we can even add more options to it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, adding a --docker would allow users to create a very customized
> >>>>>> version of a docker instance. And the maven plugins we created as
> part
> >>>
> >>> of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the examples on 1.1.0 would get all the benefit of such a new
> feature.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *What about creating an image of an already customized instance?*
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> you could have a lot of customizations..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Personally I would create one or two images, the one I already
> >>>>>>> created
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> potentially another one customized for clustering.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't think it would be just one or two
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> Camel in Action 2nd edition:
> https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS IDEA] artemis create --docker

John D. Ament-2
That is awesome to hear.  One thing to point out - the ASF already has a
docker hub account, so likely this image should reside under the ASF
https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/.

John

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:17 AM Victor Romero <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi all,
> Apologies for resurrecting old thread.
>
> As result of our conversations here I published 6 months ago a docker image
> <https://hub.docker.com/r/vromero/activemq-artemis/> for Artemis 1.0, 1.1
> and 1.2 (as they were released).
>
> In this time there have been > 150 installations, 1 pull request, 1
> stackoverflow and no complains.
>
> I'd like to contribute it for an official artemis docker image, probably in
> the form of its own github repo (so I don't think a PR would be a fit) +
> bespoke documentation in the manual. I would be happy to maintain it just
> as I've been doing with the unofficial version.
>
> I'd love to hear if a separate repo is something acceptable, and any other
> opinions regarding this.
>
> Thanks
>
> El vie., 2 oct. 2015 a las 1:05, Claus Ibsen (<[hidden email]>)
> escribió:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > On 01/10/15 20:52, Victor Romero wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of customizations
> > being
> > >>> done as part of ./artemis create...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what users,
> > >>> security... and we can even add more options to it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I see, the ones you mention are actually covered in my previous
> example:
> > >>
> > >>     - clustered v non clustered would be two different images
> published
> > to
> > >>     dockerhub.
> > >>     - HTTP PORTS, ports. Ports configuration is irrelevant in docker,
> > >> given
> > >>     that images are single process its unlikely there will be port
> > >> collision
> > >>     and ports are then exported from the container to the docker host
> > with
> > >> -P
> > >>     (that will use random ports) or -p that will use manually picked
> > >> ports.
> > >>     - Users can be configured in place just as per my published
> example
> > >>     <https://hub.docker.com/r/vromero/activemq-artemis/> (-e
> > >>     ARTEMIS_USER=myuser -e ARTEMIS_PASSWORD=otherpassword).
> > >>
> > >> The rest you share in gist
> > >> <https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181> can be
> > >> definitely converted to parameters or considered complex configuration
> > to
> > >> be mounted (this is exactly what the nginx image
> > >> <https://hub.docker.com/_/nginx/> does for example).
> > >>
> > >> Summarizing:
> > >>
> > >>> What about this, we provide the official image with sensible
> > defaults...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>    Agree at 100% with this. It might be one or perhaps two depending
> how
> > >> clean is configure clustering with docker params.
> > >>
> > >>> and have a --docker option on artemis create to extend the image like
> > you
> > >>
> > >> said?
> > >>
> > >>    Here I'm just in doubt, Artemis would be the first one doing
> > something
> > >> like this (and therefor users won't even expect it) plus it might fall
> > in
> > >> a
> > >> gray area between using the standard image with perhaps one or to
> > >> parameters and using the standard image mounting the etc directory
> with
> > >> complex configuration. Effectively it would be promoting the creation
> of
> > >> an
> > >> image per every possible configuration rather than a single
> configurable
> > >> image, and that would be against the docker philosophy itself.
> > >>
> > >>    But again, I don't really know, I'd love to hear other opinions.
> > >
> > > I agree, I dont think we need a --docker option, I think we should
> > provide
> > > some official docker images that have a basic amount of configuration
> > > options and the option to mount external configuration. People can
> extend
> > > these images if they need to add anything further.
> > >
> >
> > +1 for official docker image and have it configurable using ENV
> > variables and/or other ways.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2015-10-01 6:48 GMT-07:00 Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]
> >:
> > >>
> > >>> What about this, we provide the official image with sensible
> > defaults...
> > >>>
> > >>> and have a --docker option on artemis create to extend the image like
> > you
> > >>> said?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> the user would just download the image...
> > >>>
> > >>> /artemis create --docker <image-name> could then extend the image by
> > >>> externalizing the configuration? ... we could create scripts to start
> > the
> > >>> image with the external configurations..
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Would that make sense?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I don't see the point of having lots of different images and passing
> > in
> > >>>> variables to add to the configuration can also get a bit clunky.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would have 1 or 2 images maybe standalone and clustered and allow
> > the
> > >>>> configuration files location to be passed in when the image is run,
> > >>>> something like
> > >>>>
> > >>>> docker run --name my-artemis -e ARTEMIS_CONF=somewhere else
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 01/10/15 14:00, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> These are the options that can be part of a create:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://gist.github.com/clebertsuconic/a4a7c02e3b71961ca181
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Clebert Suconic <
> > >>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm afraid I kind of disagree with you in believeing there is value
> > on
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> the artemis
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> create phase. There is very little  customization at that point
> and
> > >>>
> > >>> very
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> little to no value at all would be added by generating a docker
> > image
> > >>>
> > >>> at
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> this phase, i.e: Why not just have an official docker image
> > published
> > >>>
> > >>> in
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> dockerhub that would have the very same effect with much less
> > tooling
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>> non standard procedures involved?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Actually you got that part wrong... There's a lot of
> customizations
> > >>>
> > >>> being
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> done as part of ./artemis create...
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> For example, clustered, non clustered, HTTP PORT, ports, what
> users,
> > >>>>>> security... and we can even add more options to it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> So, adding a --docker would allow users to create a very
> customized
> > >>>>>> version of a docker instance. And the maven plugins we created as
> > part
> > >>>
> > >>> of
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> the examples on 1.1.0 would get all the benefit of such a new
> > feature.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *What about creating an image of an already customized instance?*
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> you could have a lot of customizations..
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Personally I would create one or two images, the one I already
> > >>>>>>> created
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>> potentially another one customized for clustering.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I don't think it would be just one or two
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Claus Ibsen
> > -----------------
> > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> > Camel in Action 2nd edition:
> > https://www.manning.com/books/camel-in-action-second-edition
> >
>