Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

WIP RFC: docker-daemon ImageTransport #79

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mtrmac
Copy link
Collaborator

@mtrmac mtrmac commented Sep 8, 2016

This is unfinished, most importantly unable to handle schema1 images in either direction, but an early review would be welcome to avoid potential late surprises and to reveal any stupid bugs I have likely committed.

This adds a docker-daemon: transport, using docker/engine-api/client, creating tarballs for (docker load) on the fly, and storing (docker save) tarballs into a temporary file.

Naming of the refs is unclear as of now; something vague NamedTagged-like; see #72 .

@runcom
Copy link
Member

runcom commented Sep 8, 2016

This adds a docker-daemon: transport, using docker/engine-api/client

still using engine-api?

@mtrmac
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mtrmac commented Sep 8, 2016

Looking at docker/engine-api#379 , they seem to plan to keep the current version of that repo (but not updating) around. That is good enough for me and now, at least this week.

@runcom
Copy link
Member

runcom commented Sep 8, 2016

Looking at docker/engine-api#379 , they seem to plan to keep the current version of that repo (but not updating) around. That is good enough for me and now, at least this week.

great

@runcom
Copy link
Member

runcom commented Sep 10, 2016

@mtrmac do you think we could have dockerdaemon/* under docker/daemon/* and move the existing docker/* under docker/registry/*?

if err != nil {
return nil, fmt.Errorf("Error initializing docker engine client: %v", err)
}
inputStream, err := c.ImageSave(context.TODO(), []string{string(ref)}) // FIXME: ref should be per docker/reference.ParseIDOrReference, and we don't want NameOnly
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

in case we have NameOnly, can't we just add ":latest"?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Probably. I really want to truly understand #72 first.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Probably. I really want to truly understand #72 first.

makes sense

@runcom
Copy link
Member

runcom commented Sep 10, 2016

This is unfinished, most importantly unable to handle schema1 images in either direction, but an early review would be welcome to avoid potential late surprises and to reveal any stupid bugs I have likely committed.

From a quick look at the code, I don't see anything and structure looks solid to me.

Naming wise, we really need to figure out #72 and make sure this whole thing works ok with both upstream and projectatomic/docker

@mtrmac
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mtrmac commented Sep 12, 2016

@mtrmac do you think we could have dockerdaemon/* under docker/daemon/* and move the existing docker/* under docker/registry/*?

Sure, why not. I will change this branch for docker/daemon; the move of docker/registry would be done as a separate PR. File an issue?

@runcom
Copy link
Member

runcom commented Sep 12, 2016

File an issue?

yup

@mtrmac
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mtrmac commented Sep 14, 2016

Test failures are probably due to moby/moby#26406 .

@mtrmac mtrmac force-pushed the docker-daemon branch 5 times, most recently from fc39bea to a2468b3 Compare October 12, 2016 20:58
x
Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <mitr@redhat.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants