Re: [linuxtools-dev] Using a Dockerfile language server for the Docker e

[Roland Grunberg <rgrunber@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2017-07-26 at 18:57 +0300, akurtakov wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Roland Grunberg <rgrunber@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-07-26 at 17:12 +0300, akurtakov wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Remy Suen <remy.suen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:31 PM, akurtakov <akurtakov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > The last one would be the most time consuming as we will need all the CQs
> > > > > and etc. so we can distribute the language server with Linux Tools.
> > > >
> > > > Is it a fair assumption that someone who installs the tools has Docker
> > > > installed locally? If that is the case, perhaps the language server
> > > > could be wrapped as a docker image and then the plug-in would just use
> > > > `docker run` to launch and connect to it? Or is this idea a little too
> > > > crazy?
> > >
> > > And the image is distributed as part of Linux Tools? This looks a bit too much to me.
> > 
> > Couldn't it all be generated ? I mean as long as Docker is on the
> > system, we could :
> > 
> > Pull the 'node' image from the Dockerhub repository, build a new image
> > from the Dockerfile that Remy specified earlier (we could certainly
> > package the Dockerfile), run that new image (as a container) and then
> > simply connect to it from the client side.
> 
> IMHO this makes the Dockerfile editor totally unreliable as any network glitch and etc. will render it useless.

True, but the network would only be needed the first time (for pulling
/ building the necessary image). The argument could certainly be made
that if a user just installed the tooling, they have a working internet
connection for the time being. After that all subsequent uses would be
relying on locally available resources so lack of connection wouldn't
be an issue.

Cheers,
-- 
Roland Grunberg