feat: Standalone deployment #328
Conversation
|
|
||
| <parent> | ||
| <groupId>io.akka</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>akka-javasdk-maven</artifactId> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess we can move all common things to the grand-parent, but I wanted to make sure we agree on the approach of using a separate parent pom first.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was wondering if we could do it with a profile instead? Same parent pom, just a different config for the docker-maven-plugin .. then no changes would be needed to the app. One could decide to package for akka platform or for standalone via profile.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a good idea. I have changed to a profile.
patriknw
force-pushed
the
wip-standalone-patriknw
branch
from
2dd9514 to
25fd3aa
Compare
| <groupId>io.fabric8</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>docker-maven-plugin</artifactId> | ||
| <version>${docker-maven-plugin.version}</version> | ||
| <configuration combine.self="override"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
combine.self="override" is important, otherwise it will merge with the other plugin definition
There was a problem hiding this comment.
filename is misspelled
| If you use Kafka as message broker the configuration can be defined in your `application.conf`: | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| kalix.proxy.eventing { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunate that the old config structure becomes public API now, can we avoid that by prioritizing some alias trixery or something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, the internal config structure that we expect users to touch now becomes public API that will require the same kind of compatibility care as the Akka libraries.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, I was about to ask about that. We could probably expose it as:
akka.runtime.broker {
support = kafka
kafka {
}
}
I think broker is more what it is about, than eventing, any other opinions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would be better if we had a real sample with k8 config rather than the doc-snippets which is just a random set of components to show of small sections of features. For when users are trying this out and want to see something deployed and running?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure it's worth an additional sample, comparing to just adding those files to an existing sample (shopping-cart-quickstart) when trying it out.
* build image via standalone profile * example of kubernetes deployment
(cherry picked from commit 3e58e3f)
patriknw
force-pushed
the
wip-standalone-patriknw
branch
from
37cb3de to
e39041f
Compare
| @@ -1,9 +1,27 @@ | |||
| = Operating | |||
| = Fully-automated regions | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this could be Fully-managed Operations ... vs Self-managed Operations (below).. makes the contrast easier to understand in my view.
Co-authored-by: Eduardo Pinto <[email protected]>
No description provided.