Hi Etienne- Yes, I think providing 'container starters’ is going to provide a lot of value vs trying to define a one-size-fits-all-container. Please do add the notes to the ticket and we’ll formulate the set of deployed artifacts.
-Matt Pavlovich > On Feb 17, 2021, at 12:51 PM, Hossack, Etienne <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > phone: +1-778-945-8287 > > > >> On Feb 17, 2021, at 9:38 AM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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) < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> *Date: *Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 8:49 AM >>> *To: *Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >>> Matt Pavlovich < >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> *Cc: *"Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod)" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> *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:[email protected] >>> <cid:[email protected]>] >>> [image: cid:[email protected] >>> <cid:[email protected]>] >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Clebert Suconic >
