Ahhhh ok.. Weve mixed the docker provisioner, with the docker PROVIDER :).
This should clarify my point: (Provisioning) https://docs.vagrantup.com/v2/provisioning/docker.html (Providing) https://docs.vagrantup.com/v2/docker/index.html With the provider, you can use vagrant to run the docker build and spin provision a the configuration using a platform independent provisioner ( puppet /bash) . So you can do vagrant ssh,vagrant up, vagrant destroy as you would in a normal box, and your container doesn't require any new interaction from and end user perspective. http://jayunit100.blogspot.com/2014/08/building-vagrant-friendly-docker.html Then we can have directory structure like this: Myproject site.pp ec2/ Vagrantfile Ec2.properties Openstack/ Vagrantfile Docker/ Dockerfile Vagrantfile So there is a uniform interface for each hyper visor, end users can use vagrant to provide the instance, and vagrant up to spin it up. This idiom combines the reproducibility / platform independence, and transparency of vagrant, with the efficiency of docker. In the end I think we agree on most concepts, so this is more of a discussion than a debate. Hope this clarifies ! > On Aug 26, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Jay Vyas <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Hi roman: slight correction --- vagrant plugin for docker doesn't use vms >> unless it's on a non-Linux system. > > Pointers, please? The only thing I see out there is this one: > https://docs.vagrantup.com/v2/provisioning/docker.html > which clearly a provisioner. > >> Otherwise, i agree that's a totally viable pipeline,... I guess this debate >> has >> many sides and next bigtop meetup maybe we can have this conversation it in >> person . > > Would love to! > > Thanks, > Roman.
