2017-11-02 8:34 GMT+01:00 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com>: > Hi all, > > in apache/bookkeeper#499 <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/499 > >, > we moved packaging distribution pkgs from bookkeeper-server to > bookkeeper-dist and included all the plugins. so people can choose which > stats provider and which http server binding to use. It provides the > flexibility for users, but it also increases the size of the binary > packages. > > I am wondering if we should consider providing another distribution package > -- we can call it `standard` -- which it only includes one stats provider > (e.g. prometheus) and one http server (e.g. vertx). so in the docker > images, we can provide two images, one includes everything, the other > includes one default plugin. so user can choose which one to use and it can > be a good tradeoff between flexibility and package size. > > Any thoughts? >
It would be good to have an idea of how users run Bookies. It is not very clear to me in the BookKeeper ecosystem how Bookies are deployed usually. I have very limited knowledge, as far as I know we have: - run bookie using scripts provided in the distribution package. Does anyone really uses it ? Twitter, Salesforce, custom scripts ? - Docker, Kubernetes...... - Mesos/Aurora ? still Docker ? - Embedded bookies, packaged together with other applications (this is my case) I don't know best practices for Pulsar, DL, Pravega....do users run Bookie or use scripts provided by the "main" technology ? For my products (non opensource) we provide custom scripts and we package the bookie tailoring it to our needs I think that for the Docker world it is good to do as you Sijie are proposing, two packages: - uber package - small package, but working so I am +1 with your idea of having 2 images Enrico > > - Sijie >
