My co-worker and I were wondering if anyone has had a chance to review our sample docker image at https://github.com/shankc1crs/docker-activemq/blob/master/classic/5.16/jre11/openjdk-buster/Dockerfile
We saw where Matt Pavlovich was added to the Docker hub https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21430 And I was wondering what the plan was to get our image added to Docker hub? Or if the community have other plans? Was looking to see what the next steps will be to move forward on having a standard docker image for ActiveMQ Thanks for your feedback on this issue -----Original Message----- From: Arthur Naseef <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Official Docker Image for ActiveMQ Nationwide Information Security Warning: This is an EXTERNAL email. Use CAUTION before clicking on links, opening attachments, or responding. (Sender: [email protected]) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I keep seeing mention of having multiple variations of docker images using different base images and some thoughts come to mind. Here are my thoughts: - Docker staged builds make it easy to copy specific contents from one base image into a new one, leaving behind unwanted content (e.g. O/S or JDK specifics) - If the ActiveMQ-specific parts are placed in dedicated directories, copying them out to new images would be straight forward - Of couse, the number of combinations folks will want can grow to unmaintainable levels quickly - Having official image(s) that are functional, and provide a "quick-start" to meet the following use-cases would be great value across the board: - New user spinning up a broker to learn/experiment - Build/Test pipeline ephemeral broker for application testing purposes - Docker containers have many means to gain access to additional tooling not built-into an image - Because of this, having a minimal container is not overly-limiting - Of course, getting tools working with a process in a docker container can be challenging (e.g. not everyone will be comfortable to use nsenter), so some basic tools may be good to have - Providing a basic, well-structured image enables more complex use-cases without having to clean-up / undo more advanced Hope this helps. Art On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:38 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > As I’m preparing ActiveMQ 5.17.0 with lot of changes, I plan to > include docker image there. > > Regards > JB > > > Le 17 mars 2021 à 09:26, Havret <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > Any update on this? > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 00:30 Clebert Suconic > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> I feel like we are stuck again on Infra. > >> > >> On the clone for artemis someone suggested asking for help in > >> build.Apache.org which I then answered we just need help and > authorization > >> to upload stuff > >> > >> > >> Anyone have any insight!? > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 1:33 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Not yet. INFRA has assigned that task, but not taken any action on > >>> the request. I’ll nudge for an update. > >>> > >>>> On Feb 24, 2021, at 12:21 PM, Clebert Suconic < > >> [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Do you have a Jenkins job already aligned to build it ? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 12:19 PM Matt Pavlovich > >>>> <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I’m prepping the PR for 5.17.0. Please provide feedback on the JIRA. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks! > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2021, at 11:16 AM, Havret <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Any update on this? I've just seen that Victor Romero archived > >>>>>> his unofficial docker image. :( > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 4:57 PM Clebert Suconic < > >>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm following up on that JIRA ticket. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:57 AM Clebert Suconic > >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks Matt, I thought you already had some information about > >> changes > >>>>>>>> on Infra. I had misunderstood you. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:33 AM Matt Pavlovich < > >> [email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Clebert- > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I do not have all the info yet, INFRA has assigned the > >>>>>>>>> ticket but > >>> not > >>>>>>> started working on it =) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -Matt > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 19, 2021, at 9:25 AM, Clebert Suconic < > >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I tried to follow the JIRA on Infra and I did not see much > >>>>>>> information about it. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> What's the procedure to upload images? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The only thing I saw was this JIRA: But it seemed you would > >>>>>>>>>> be uploading images manually? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21430 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Isn't there an official way to provide the images? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> In artemis we have a docker module where you would build > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>> binaries > >>>>>>>>>> and create the image. We would just need to add that to a > Jenkins > >>>>>>>>>> build and produce an image whenever a tag is created. > >>>>>>>>>> I suppose ActiveMQ branch would do the same... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> How this is supposed to work? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> thank you > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 4:13 PM Matt Pavlovich < > >> [email protected] > >>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> +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-practic > es/#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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Clebert Suconic > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>> Clebert Suconic > >>> > >>> -- > >> Clebert Suconic > >> > >
