+1 The initial features list and notes in the JIRA reflect this approach. I’ll start on the module and push a PR this weekend.
Thanks, Matt > On Feb 17, 2021, at 2:08 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree, I think it’s the most convenient approach. > > For instance, at Karaf, I maintain a Dockerfile as part of the codebase: > https://github.com/apache/karaf/tree/master/assemblies/docker > <https://github.com/apache/karaf/tree/master/assemblies/docker> > > As part of a Karaf release, I’m pushing Karaf docker image. > > However, anyone can start from the Karaf Dockerfile to create their own one > (we also provide a goal on the karaf-maven-plugin to do so). > > I think ActiveMQ (at least classic) should just provide a Dockerfile (or a > set) and push "official" docker images. But still letting people to create > their own. > > Regards > JB > >> Le 17 févr. 2021 à 19:51, Hossack, Etienne <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> >> 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 >> >
