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

[Roland Grunberg <rgrunber@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2017-07-26 at 12:34 -0400, Roland Grunberg wrote:
> 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,

I've put together a basic proof of concept that's about 50 lines of
plugin.xml extensions and 20 lines of code :

https://fedorapeople.org/~rgrunber/lsp-dockerfile.ogv

I guess if we really want this, we should look into what needs to get
CQs opened (node, dockerfile-language-server-nodejs, etc.) and what can
 be assumed to exist on the system. It still might be nice to also
support the case where the language server is provided through a
container.

Cheers,
-- 
Roland Grunberg