Patterns of Multi-Container Composition for Service Orchestration with Docker Compose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software design patterns present general code solutions to common software design problems. Modern software systems rely heavily on containers for running their constituent service components. Yet, despite the prevalence of ready-to-use Docker service images ready to participate in multi-container service compositions of applications, developers do not have much guidance on how to compose their own Docker service orchestrations. Thus in this work, we curate a dataset of successful projects that employ Docker Compose as an orchestration tool to run multiple service containers; then, we engage in qualitative and quantitative analysis of Docker Compose configurations. The collection of data and analysis enables the identification and naming of repeating multi-container composition patterns that are used in numerous successful open-source projects, much like software design patterns. These patterns highlight how software systems are orchestrated in the real-world and can give examples to anybody wishing to compose their own service orchestrations. These contributions also advance empirical research in software engineering patterns as evidence is provided about how Docker Compose is used.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".