On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:34AM, Evans Ye wrote: > Absolutely that's the way we should go! > In fact, that's what we're doing in the docker-compose branch. > It's not a problem to get container's name. But I can recall that I didn't > have a luck to get the following works: > > ./gradlew provisioner-attach bigtop1 #Then you get the bigtop1 container's > shell prompt. > > Do you have any suggestion?
Were you running
docker exec -ti
for that? Do you remember?
>
> 2016-02-25 8:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>:
>
> > Recently I was dealing quite a bit with our provisioner and while it is
> > great
> > as is, there are still some ways we can improve both its complexity (for
> > better maintenance), and UX for the users.
> >
> > Namely, I suggest we get rid of the ssh support for the docker provisioner.
> > Instead, connecting to the container could be done via docker exec, which
> > seems to be faster. There are at least two benefits in this:
> > - for a user to log into a container, you won't have to change directory
> > to
> > run 'vagrant ssh bigtop1'. A user won't be even exposed to the vagrant.
> > Instead, we can hook up the aforementioned exec to gradle so when
> > ./gradlew provisioner-attach bigtop1
> > is ran, we will first figure out the full name of the container, which
> > include 'bigtop1' substring; then run the exec command interactively.
> > - similarly, the deployment would be less complex, as puppet commands
> > will be
> > ran directly without piping them into 'vagrant ssh ...'
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Cos
> >
> >
> >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
