Docker Image Organization Strategy for Texera's Microservices

[bobbai00]

Background

As we are preparing for the release, we need to decide on a strategy for organizing our Docker images basedo on our microservices architecture.

Options

Option 1: Repository-Level Identification

Each microservice has its own dedicated Docker repository.

Image naming pattern:

• apache/texera-file-service:1.1.0
• apache/texera-web-application:1.1.0
• apache/texera-config-service:1.1.0
• etc.

If we choose this approach, we will need to create and maintain 8 image repositories.

Option 2: Tag-Level Identification

All microservices share a single Docker repository, differentiated by tags.

Image naming pattern:

• apache/texera:file-service-1-1-0
• apache/texera:web-application-1-1-0
• apache/texera:config-service-1-1-0
• etc.

Initial investigation

After investigation, Option 1 appears to be a more common approach.

Please share your thoughts on this!

[chenlica]

What are the pros and cons of each option? Can you include a few Apache projects following option 1 (ideally with their related URLs)?

[bobbai00]

Option 1
Pros:

• Clear separation of different micro services
• A more common practices

Cons:

• Requires creating and maintaining multiple repositories (8 repos needed)
• More initial setup work

Example projects

• Apache Dolphinscheduler

Option 2
Pros:

• Single repository to manage, less initial setup

Cons:

• Tags can become cluttered and harder to navigate
• Seems no apache project takes this approach

[Yicong-Huang]

I like option 1. those services share nothing but just the "texera" name. so I think it makes sense to have separated image repos.

[chenlica]

In this case I also support Option 1.

[bobbai00]

Since people are supporting option 1, I will raise a JIRA ticket for creating corresponding docker repos. The repos are:

• apache/texera-dashboard-service (renamed from texera-web-application)
• apache/texera-file-service
• apache/texera-config-service
• apache/texera-access-control-service
• apache/texera-workflow-compiling-service
• apache/texera-workflow-computing-unit-managing-service
• apache/texera-workflow-execution-coordinator (renamed from computing-unit-master)
• apache/texera-workflow-execution-runner (renamed from computing-unit-worker)

What do you all think about this plan?

[chenlica]

@bobbai00 Let's go with your suggested names. We can always change them later if needed.

[bobbai00]

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-27403 Here is the JIRA ticket.