Replace all Shiplift usages with Bollard #323
Conversation
src/clients/cli.rs
Outdated
| @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ use crate::{ | |||
| core::{env, env::GetEnvValue, logs::LogStream, ports::Ports, ContainerState, Docker, WaitFor}, | |||
| Container, Image, ImageArgs, RunnableImage, | |||
| }; | |||
| use shiplift::rep::ContainerDetails; | |||
| use bollard::models::ContainerInspectResponse; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we would inline this struct, then we could feature-flag bollard on the experimental. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting idea. Not sure about inlining the struct, though — we'd have to track the changes in the API, and it's not fun :) We could use bollard-stubs (it's the crate where bollard stores the autogenerated models) inside CLI; it should be enough. Are you OK with it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, that is much better! Certainly more lightweight!
`bollard-stubs` is a crate with autogenerated models for the Docker API. Previously, we were using models embedded in `bollard` inside CLI, while the client itself wasn't required. Now we're making `bollard` an optional dependency and including it only when we need the heavy-lifting, i.e. the client logic. The internal implementation of the CLI client uses the models from `bollard-stubs` from now on.
|
Anyway, I pushed the usage of P.S. I just discovered that the switch to |
|
Thank you very much for this effort. Nice that this fixes #279! bors r+ |
Judging by the low activity in shiplift (last commit on 1 Sep 2021, quite a few unmerged PRs after September and lack of response in the maintenance status clarification request softprops/shiplift#321), I think it's a good time to switch to a more actively maintained crate.
I picked Ballard because of the more active repo than
docker-api-rs. And I liked the idea with the code generation from the API :)