4 ms·

> Docker is a terrific product, but as a general-purpose solution, is simply too blunt an instrument for the deployment and management of JVM application contai

by smegel 11y ago

> Docker is a terrific product, but as a general-purpose solution, is simply too blunt an instrument for the deployment and management of JVM application containers Why? > Image management, logging and monitoring present challenges to general-purpose container solutions, but are non-issues for the JVM. WTF? Java applications can be a pain to set up. Jars here, jars there, Maven, Ant, XML configuration, its all a big mess. If someone can do all that for me and say "here's my Docker image that just works" I would say issue solved. > Docker images are big and contain full-blown operating systems as they are meant to run arbitrary applications: managing their archival and evolution can become a serious hassle. On the other hand JVM applications need nothing more than a JVM and a kernel This person seems to have a serious lack of understanding of Docker. Your Docker image does not need to contain a "full-blown operating system" - it is perfectly acceptable for it to contain just the strict dependencies of the program (the JVM) you are running. On my system java links against libpthrad, libdl, libz and libc. > Linking: Java already supports customized domain-name resolution, so Docker’s solution of modifying the container’s hosts file is unnecessary Does he even get what linking is about? Linking is a way of sharing configuration between containers...so the mysql host:port on one container is available as a convenient environment variable or /etc/hosts on another. What has this got to do with Java's DNS custom support? > Monitoring and Management: The JVM has its own rich monitoring and management API, JMX And Docker is somehow preventing you from using this? This post reeks of Java elitism and written by people who didn't even bother trying to understand the technology they are claiming is inferior or not applicable to a True Java approach.

pron 11y ago
I am sorry you feel hurt, but you have misunderstood the post. Docker really is great -- and like the post says, it really does let you do everything you want. But for JVM applications, Capsule is much easier and faster, requires fewer steps and fewer tools, and launches containers that are more secure and easier to monitor and manage. Docker doesn't prevent you from doing all that (well, except for the security bit), but it does add extra work and an extra layer of inconvenience compared to Capsules. Capsules are a JAR file built by your chosen build-tool that require no set up, configuration etc.. You can launch them as a simple executable JAR, or, if you wish, optionally launch them in a container. Docker isn't inferior by any means. It is simply less streamlined -- for the JVM -- than a solution that is specifically tailored for the JVM. That's it.

by smegel 11y ago

pron 11y ago

I am sorry you feel hurt, but you have misunderstood the post. Docker really is great -- and like the post says, it really does let you do everything you want. But for JVM applications, Capsule is much easier and faster, requires fewer steps and fewer tools, and launches containers that are more secure and easier to monitor and manage. Docker doesn't prevent you from doing all that (well, except for the security bit), but it does add extra work and an extra layer of inconvenience compared to Capsules. Capsules are a JAR file built by your chosen build-tool that require no set up, configuration etc.. You can launch them as a simple executable JAR, or, if you wish, optionally launch them in a container. Docker isn't inferior by any means. It is simply less streamlined -- for the JVM -- than a solution that is specifically tailored for the JVM. That's it.