Docker Containers Not Working

None of the docker containers like lucee/lucee4 are working right now.
Easy steps to reproduce…

  1. Download the latest version of docker toolbox
  2. Open Kitematic
  3. Run lucee/lucee4

I’ve tested all sorts of other containers that do work, so not sure what
the issue is here. Wondering if anyone else has run into this issue.

I’m just trying to give some more info here… but if from inside the
container I try to do: /usr/local/tomcat/bin/catalina.sh run

I get the following

root@0628eadc9de3:/usr/local/tomcat/bin# ./catalina.sh run

Error opening zip file or JAR manifest missing : lucee/lucee-inst.jar

Error occurred during initialization of VM

agent library failed to init: instrument

I don’t know if that command should even work, but I figured this error
might help provide some context

-GregOn Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:35:40 AM UTC-8, Greg Moser wrote:

None of the docker containers like lucee/lucee4 are working right now.
Easy steps to reproduce…

  1. Download the latest version of docker toolbox
  2. Open Kitematic
  3. Run lucee/lucee4

I’ve tested all sorts of other containers that do work, so not sure what
the issue is here. Wondering if anyone else has run into this issue.

Ok, so more info…

This Works

lucee/lucee-tomcat:4.5.1

However These do NOT
lucee/lucee-tomcat:latest
lucee/lucee-tomcat:4.5.2 (same as latest I believe, but maybe not)
lucee/lucee4:latest
lucee/lucee4:4.5.2.018 (same as latest I believe, but maybe not)
lucee/lucee4:4.5.1.024
lucee/lucee5:latest

-GregOn Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:38:17 AM UTC-8, Greg Moser wrote:

I’m just trying to give some more info here… but if from inside the
container I try to do: /usr/local/tomcat/bin/catalina.sh run

I get the following

root@0628eadc9de3:/usr/local/tomcat/bin# ./catalina.sh run

Error opening zip file or JAR manifest missing : lucee/lucee-inst.jar

Error occurred during initialization of VM

agent library failed to init: instrument

I don’t know if that command should even work, but I figured this error
might help provide some context

-Greg

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:35:40 AM UTC-8, Greg Moser wrote:

None of the docker containers like lucee/lucee4 are working right now.
Easy steps to reproduce…

  1. Download the latest version of docker toolbox
  2. Open Kitematic
  3. Run lucee/lucee4

I’ve tested all sorts of other containers that do work, so not sure what
the issue is here. Wondering if anyone else has run into this issue.

Hi Greg,On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 04:35:40 UTC+11, Greg Moser wrote:

None of the docker containers like lucee/lucee4 are working right now.
Easy steps to reproduce…

  1. Download the latest version of docker toolbox
  2. Open Kitematic
  3. Run lucee/lucee4

I’ve tested all sorts of other containers that do work, so not sure what
the issue is here. Wondering if anyone else has run into this issue.

Kitematic is rubbish; it’s only useful for window shopping appliance-like
containers. Lucee has base images – ie. on its own it does nothing, you
have to incorporate your application code for Lucee to do anything at all
useful.

That said, Kitematic is part of the tooling that Docker are pushing. The
only thing we could do here is create a Lucee Docker Demo image for use
specifically within Kitematic; that is, it does nothing at all useful other
than show you a CFM page and possibly the admin. Maybe i should put
something together called lucee/kitematic that lures people in and explains
not to use kitematic :slight_smile:

Note lucee/lucee4 is long deprecated and will be removed entirely from
Dockerhub.

All the best,

– geoff bowers
Daemon Internet Consultants
Sydney, Australia
w. http://www.daemon.com.au/

Hi Greg,

All the containers work fine here.

This Works

lucee/lucee-tomcat:4.5.1

DO NOT USE this image; it is deprecated.

However These do NOT
lucee/lucee-tomcat:latest
lucee/lucee-tomcat:4.5.2 (same as latest I believe, but maybe not)

DO NOT USE these images; they are deprecated.

lucee/lucee4:latest

lucee/lucee4:4.5.2.018 (same as latest I believe, but maybe not)
lucee/lucee4:4.5.1.024
lucee/lucee5:latest

These are all base images that expect to be extended by a Dockerfile in
your own project. It’s likely that you get no response from them as they
are not exposing port 8888 by default, and I’m guessing you are trying to
reach them via port 80 or 8080.

There are instructions regarding this in the README:
https://github.com/lucee/lucee-dockerfiles/tree/master/4.5#using-this-image

We may end up exposing the 8888 port by default on the base image. The
argument against this is that you need to have your own Dockerfile in any
event and that can expose the port you want.

The problem is that you cannot unexpose a port in the current version of
Docker. Port 8888 is used as its the defacto standard for Lucee installs.
Tomcat uses port 8080 by default and the Tomcat base image exposes this –
and we can’t unexpose it. If we expose port 8888 you will see port 8888
and 8080 exposed in your project container even if you don’t want to use
either of them; for example, the lucee4-nginx image only needs port 80 and
443 exposed.

I have created an example project that shows how to extend the base image
here:
https://github.com/modius/lucee-docker-workbench/blob/master/Dockerfile

And started to write about using the images here:
http://modius.io/2016/01/02/docker-for-lucee-devs-p1/
http://modius.io/2016/01/03/docker-for-lucee-devs-p2/

Hopefully that helps :slight_smile:

– geoff bowers
Daemon Internet Consultants
Sydney, Australia
w. http://www.daemon.com.au/On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 06:02:44 UTC+11, Greg Moser wrote:

Are the lucee containers working for anyone else?On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:02:44 AM UTC-8, Greg Moser wrote:

Ok, so more info…

This Works

lucee/lucee-tomcat:4.5.1

However These do NOT
lucee/lucee-tomcat:latest
lucee/lucee-tomcat:4.5.2 (same as latest I believe, but maybe not)
lucee/lucee4:latest
lucee/lucee4:4.5.2.018 (same as latest I believe, but maybe not)
lucee/lucee4:4.5.1.024
lucee/lucee5:latest

-Greg

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:38:17 AM UTC-8, Greg Moser wrote:

I’m just trying to give some more info here… but if from inside the
container I try to do: /usr/local/tomcat/bin/catalina.sh run

I get the following

root@0628eadc9de3:/usr/local/tomcat/bin# ./catalina.sh run

Error opening zip file or JAR manifest missing : lucee/lucee-inst.jar

Error occurred during initialization of VM

agent library failed to init: instrument

I don’t know if that command should even work, but I figured this error
might help provide some context

-Greg

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:35:40 AM UTC-8, Greg Moser wrote:

None of the docker containers like lucee/lucee4 are working right now.
Easy steps to reproduce…

  1. Download the latest version of docker toolbox
  2. Open Kitematic
  3. Run lucee/lucee4

I’ve tested all sorts of other containers that do work, so not sure what
the issue is here. Wondering if anyone else has run into this issue.

I agree that Kitematic is basically useless except for demo’s or QA. For example
we use it for our QA department to run pre-configured containers with various
github branches or versions. For that use case it is actually pretty cool
because they can set the environment variable of “Version Number or Branch” from
the gui, and run a fresh new clean install to test against. Useless for
production style containers.
I really only brought up Kitematic to try an illustrate a point, which you have
now clarified on the github issue, so thank you for that. There was certainly
some confusion with the port 8080 being exposed, but I now see there is nothing
you can do about that, and I agree having no default ports exposed makes sense.
I am confused by one comment: Note lucee/lucee4 is long deprecated and will be removed entirely from
Dockerhub.
Did you mean to say “lucee/lucee-tomcat”? Because I know that was the old image
as it was mentioned in the description here: https://hub.docker.com/r/lucee/lucee-tomcat/
However, that description explicitly told me to use lucee/lucee4 which is what I
was trying to do when I ran into this issue
-GregOn Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM Geoff Bowers <@Geoff_Bowers> wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 04:35:40 UTC+11, Greg Moser wrote: None of the docker containers like lucee/lucee4 are working right now. Easy
steps to reproduce…

  1. Download the latest version of docker toolbox 2) Open Kitematic 3) Run lucee/lucee4
    I’ve tested all sorts of other containers that do work, so not sure what the
    issue is here. Wondering if anyone else has run into this issue.
    Kitematic is rubbish; it’s only useful for window shopping appliance-like
    containers. Lucee has base images – ie. on its own it does nothing, you have to
    incorporate your application code for Lucee to do anything at all useful.
    That said, Kitematic is part of the tooling that Docker are pushing. The only
    thing we could do here is create a Lucee Docker Demo image for use specifically
    within Kitematic; that is, it does nothing at all useful other than show you a
    CFM page and possibly the admin. Maybe i should put something together called
    lucee/kitematic that lures people in and explains not to use kitematic :slight_smile:
    Note lucee/lucee4 is long deprecated and will be removed entirely from
    Dockerhub.
    All the best,
    – geoff bowers Daemon Internet Consultants
    Sydney, Australia w. http://www.daemon.com.au/


Love Lucee? Become a supporter and be part of the Lucee project today! - http://lucee.org/supporters/ become-a-supporter.html

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google
Groups “Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/lucee/oN33IPe414U/ unsubscribe .
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lucee+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com .
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/lucee/5259d07a-6cb1- 441a-b04a-dd78f90313ca%
40googlegroups.com .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout .