Why Multi-stage Docker builds in Spring Boot? - Purpose & Use Cases

The Big Idea

Discover how one Dockerfile can save you hours of build headaches and shrink your app images!

The Scenario

Imagine you want to create a Docker image for your Spring Boot app. You first build the app inside the image, then copy the result to a smaller image for running. Doing this manually means writing separate Dockerfiles and copying files back and forth.

The Problem

Manually managing multiple Dockerfiles or copying build artifacts is slow and error-prone. You might forget to copy files, end up with huge images full of build tools, or have inconsistent builds that are hard to debug.

The Solution

Multi-stage Docker builds let you write one Dockerfile with multiple steps. You build your app in one stage, then copy only the final result to a clean, small image. This keeps images small, builds consistent, and simplifies your workflow.

Before vs After

✗ Before

FROM openjdk:17 AS builder
WORKDIR /app
COPY . .
RUN ./gradlew build

FROM openjdk:17
COPY build/libs/app.jar /app.jar
CMD ["java", "-jar", "/app.jar"]

✓ After

FROM openjdk:17 AS builder
WORKDIR /app
COPY . .
RUN ./gradlew build

FROM openjdk:17-jdk-slim
COPY --from=builder /app/build/libs/app.jar /app.jar
CMD ["java", "-jar", "/app.jar"]

What It Enables

It enables creating small, efficient Docker images that build reliably and run faster in production.

Real Life Example

A developer builds a Spring Boot app with tests and dependencies in the first stage, then produces a tiny image with just the app jar and runtime for deployment to Kubernetes.

Key Takeaways

Manual Docker builds can be slow and create large images.

Multi-stage builds combine build and runtime steps in one Dockerfile.

This results in smaller images and simpler, more reliable builds.

Practice

1. What is the main benefit of using multi-stage Docker builds for a Spring Boot application?

easy

A. It creates smaller and cleaner Docker images by separating build and runtime stages.

B. It allows running multiple containers from the same image simultaneously.

C. It automatically updates the Spring Boot version inside the container.

D. It enables running the application without a Dockerfile.

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand multi-stage build purpose

   Multi-stage builds separate the build environment from the runtime environment to reduce image size.

2. Step 2: Identify benefit for Spring Boot apps

   By copying only the needed files from build to runtime stage, the final image is smaller and cleaner.

3. Final Answer:

   It creates smaller and cleaner Docker images by separating build and runtime stages. -> Option A

4. Quick Check:

   Multi-stage builds = smaller images [OK]

Hint: Multi-stage builds reduce image size by splitting build and run [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Confusing multi-stage builds with running multiple containers
• Thinking it updates Spring Boot version automatically
• Believing Dockerfile is not needed

2. Which of the following is the correct syntax to start a new build stage named 'builder' in a Dockerfile?

easy

A. NEW STAGE builder FROM openjdk:17

B. FROM openjdk:17 AS builder

C. BUILD openjdk:17 AS builder

D. STAGE builder FROM openjdk:17

Solution

1. Step 1: Recall Dockerfile multi-stage syntax

   The correct syntax to start a build stage is 'FROM <image> AS <name>'.

2. Step 2: Match syntax to options

   Only FROM openjdk:17 AS builder uses 'FROM openjdk:17 AS builder' which is valid.

3. Final Answer:

   FROM openjdk:17 AS builder -> Option B

4. Quick Check:

   Multi-stage start = FROM ... AS ... [OK]

Hint: Use 'FROM image AS name' to start a build stage [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Using 'STAGE' or 'BUILD' keywords incorrectly
• Placing 'AS' after the stage name
• Writing 'NEW STAGE' which is invalid

3. Given this Dockerfile snippet for a Spring Boot app:

FROM maven:3.8.6-openjdk-17 AS builder
WORKDIR /app
COPY pom.xml .
RUN mvn dependency:go-offline
COPY src ./src
RUN mvn package -DskipTests

FROM openjdk:17-jdk-slim
COPY --from=builder /app/target/myapp.jar /app/myapp.jar
ENTRYPOINT ["java", "-jar", "/app/myapp.jar"]

What will be the size impact of this multi-stage build compared to a single-stage build including Maven?

medium

A. The final image will be smaller because Maven and source files are excluded.

B. The final image will be larger because it contains both Maven and JDK.

C. The final image size is the same as a single-stage build.

D. The final image will fail to build due to missing source files.

Solution

1. Step 1: Analyze multi-stage build steps

   The first stage builds the app with Maven, the second stage copies only the jar file.

2. Step 2: Understand image size impact

   Since Maven and source code are not copied to the final image, it is smaller than a single-stage build including Maven.

3. Final Answer:

   The final image will be smaller because Maven and source files are excluded. -> Option A

4. Quick Check:

   Copy only jar = smaller image [OK]

Hint: Final image excludes build tools, so it's smaller [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Assuming Maven stays in final image
• Thinking source files are copied to final image
• Believing multi-stage builds cause build failure here

4. Identify the error in this Dockerfile snippet for a multi-stage build:

FROM openjdk:17 AS builder
WORKDIR /app
COPY . .
RUN ./mvnw package

FROM openjdk:17-jdk-slim
COPY /app/target/app.jar /app/app.jar
ENTRYPOINT ["java", "-jar", "/app/app.jar"]

medium

A. The first stage should use a Maven image, not openjdk.

B. The ENTRYPOINT syntax is incorrect and will cause a runtime error.

C. The WORKDIR command is missing in the second stage.

D. The COPY command in the second stage uses an absolute path instead of a relative path from the builder stage.

Solution

1. Step 1: Check COPY command in second stage

   The COPY command uses '/app/target/app.jar' which is an absolute path on the host, not from the builder stage.

2. Step 2: Correct COPY syntax for multi-stage

   It should be 'COPY --from=builder /app/target/app.jar /app/app.jar' to copy from the builder stage.

3. Final Answer:

   The COPY command in the second stage uses an absolute path instead of a relative path from the builder stage. -> Option D

4. Quick Check:

   Use COPY --from=builder for multi-stage files [OK]

Hint: Use COPY --from=stage to copy files between stages [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Forgetting --from=builder in COPY
• Assuming ENTRYPOINT syntax is wrong
• Thinking WORKDIR is required in second stage

5. You want to optimize a Spring Boot Dockerfile using multi-stage builds. Which approach best reduces the final image size while ensuring the app runs correctly?

hard

A. Build the app and run it in the same stage using a full Maven and JDK image.

B. Copy the entire source code and Maven cache to the final image for faster startup.

C. Use a Maven build stage to compile, then copy only the fat jar to a minimal JRE base image in the final stage.

D. Use multiple runtime stages with different JDK versions to support various environments.

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand multi-stage build optimization

   Building with Maven in one stage and copying only the final jar to a minimal runtime image reduces size.

2. Step 2: Evaluate options for best practice

   Use a Maven build stage to compile, then copy only the fat jar to a minimal JRE base image in the final stage. uses a build stage with Maven and a minimal JRE image for runtime, which is optimal.

3. Final Answer:

   Use a Maven build stage to compile, then copy only the fat jar to a minimal JRE base image in the final stage. -> Option C

4. Quick Check:

   Build then minimal runtime = smallest image [OK]

Hint: Build with Maven, run with minimal JRE for smallest image [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Running build and runtime in one large image
• Copying unnecessary source code to final image
• Using multiple runtime stages unnecessarily