Skip to content

Refactoring of DockerClientConfig to better match with docker CLI...#444

Closed
marcuslinke wants to merge 5 commits intomasterfrom
issue-331
Closed

Refactoring of DockerClientConfig to better match with docker CLI...#444
marcuslinke wants to merge 5 commits intomasterfrom
issue-331

Conversation

@marcuslinke
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

...configuration options.

This PR addresses issue #331. It renames all the config options/keys of docker-java to match better with the docker CLI environment options.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what is the idea of adding it here?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Passing a custom SSLContext to the DockerClientConfig could logically collide with the DOCKER_TLS_VERIFY/dockerTlsVerify() option in the sense of consistency. Additionally I want to free DockerClientConfig from non-default/special configuration options so I moved it to the DockerCmdExecFactory. Makes sense?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems i totally confused with all this classes... Feel free to merge.

@KostyaSha
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@marcuslinke imho it makes sense firstly made refactoring of all hash methods and toString(). Can i get some window between your refactorings?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

&& isFile() afair more exact check

@KostyaSha KostyaSha mentioned this pull request Jan 31, 2016
@marcuslinke
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Closed in favor of rebased version: #447

@marcuslinke marcuslinke closed this Feb 2, 2016
@marcuslinke marcuslinke deleted the issue-331 branch February 2, 2016 19:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants