Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
Hello,
As you may know, we have currently 2 docker containers in the organisations (Github and Docker Hub), - the first one (docker-asciidoctor) contains the whole ecosystem so people don't need to setup the suite. - the second one (asciidoctorj-wildfly) is a web editor using AsciidoctorJ and Wildfly The idea is to merge both into a single Github project and keeping 2 docker container / builds, so it will be easier to maintain and it reduces the amount of GH repos we have. WDYT ? Cheers, Guillaume |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
I don't see any issues with this. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Guillaume [via Asciidoctor :: Discussion] <[hidden email]> wrote: Hello, ... [show rest of quote] |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
In reply to this post by Guillaume
Hi,
+1 for all Dockerfiles in one GitHub repository. However, like you can read on the asciidoctor.org news [1], one of the main goal of docker-asciidoctorj project is to verify that AsciidoctorJ works in an application server (only WildFly for now). So, IMHO even if the Dockerfile is moved to another GitHub project, I think that this docker-asciidoctorj project should continue to exist (maybe with another name). I think that we also need to discuss about the naming convention for Docker images in Docker Hub, but maybe in another thread. @Guillaume The asciidoctorj-wildfly docker image doesn't include a web editor but just all components required to use Asciidoctor in a WildFly instance, but a web editor is a good use case :) ] http://asciidoctor.org/news/2015/03/04/docker-asciidoctorj-announcement/
mgreau.com/posts => HubPress Blog :)
|
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
Administrator
|
I'm in favor of keeping separate docker images / repos for now. Perhaps one can extend from the other or from a base image (isn't that possible?), though that's not necessarily a requirement since I think these images serve different audiences. * The docker-asciidoctor image serves end users who don't want to have to setup the toolchain to invoke Asciidoctor and get all the outputs they want. * The docker-asciidoctorj image serves developers / admins who want to run applications based on AsciidoctorJ on an application server such as adoc-editor.* * We might want to think about a more specialized name to communicate the purpose of docker-asciidoctorj, but for now that's understood. I also agree that the name of the docker-asciidoctor image on Docker Hub doesn't need to include "docker" in the name. Is that possible? We could name it either "asciidoctor" or "asciidoctor-toolchain" (since the focus is on utilizing the toolchain as an end user). wdyt? Cheers, -Dan On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:56 PM, mgreau [via Asciidoctor :: Discussion] <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi, ... [show rest of quote] Dan Allen | http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
1) docker-asciidoctor
For me the main goal of this project is to check that AsciidoctorJ could be well integrate into different applications servers (Tomcat 7, 8, WildFly 8, 9, 10, Jetty...) and so to have examples for users about how configure it and its dependencies on each environment. So for example IMO, it could be renamed as asciidoctorj-servers-integration or asciidoctorj-integration Cheers, Max
mgreau.com/posts => HubPress Blog :)
|
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
Administrator
|
I like this plan! As for the names: * asciidoctor-toolchain - very nice, especially since we're so used to saying "the DocBook toolchain" * asciidoctorj-server-integration seems like the best choice to me. Let's keep it going! -Dan On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 5:20 PM, mgreau [via Asciidoctor :: Discussion] <[hidden email]> wrote: 1) docker-asciidoctor ... [show rest of quote] Dan Allen | @mojavelinux | http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |