arturdzm
commented
5 years ago Install image will create a profile on first launch, but the difference from profile one is that created profile can be somewhat customized, serve/node/host name etc
Closed patricktiu closed 5 years ago
arturdzm
commented
5 years ago Install image will create a profile on first launch, but the difference from profile one is that created profile can be somewhat customized, serve/node/host name etc
arthurdm
commented
5 years ago thanks for the comments @patricktiu and @arturdzm
I guess the question is: in a docker container, where we're pushing for a single server and a single app within that server, I guess the profile details don't matter so much? For example, in Liberty we use defaultServer as the server name, and that seems to be fine all the time.
If we can simplify our Docker Hub images and just have a single one (profile), I am all for it.
Thoughts?
patricktiu
commented
5 years ago +1 for only push profile for docker hub.
arthurdm
commented
5 years ago We are moving towards the direction of only having the profile tag. In a docker environment the details of the profile shouldn't matter to the user - the important thing are "how do I create an application image which contains my config / app".
We will get a few PRs this week to improve the user experience to accomplish that.
The only difference between :install and :profile image seems that one will create the server profile at container startup time and the other will include the server profile in the image. It seems not very useful to have the ibmcom/websphere-traditional:install.
Can someone share a good use case for the ibmcom/websphere-traditional:install that it can not be done with ibmcom/websphere-traditional:profile? Maybe we should stop publishing ibmcom/websphere-traditional:install to docker hub.