5 ms·

I'm still wondering what the appc spec has more than Docker (and vice-versa). At the moment, I know Docker and find it easy to use. Why would I use Rocket inste

• vacri 12y ago
  Rocket isn't trying to have more than Docker, it's explicitly trying to have less. Rocket was started because the authors thought that Docker was losing sight of it's original mission and becoming bloatware. I've not used Rocket at all, but I'm having to implement Docker in production. As an ops guy rather than a dev, I'm finding a lot of rough edges. One example: I was away from the office a couple of days ago and one of the devs had to push to our staging servers instead of me. He logged in, and couldn't pull the image from dockerhub. Error message said the image was not found, which was demonstrably wrong, because he could pull it to his own machine. You just have to know that "image not found" can mean both "image not found" and "you haven't run 'docker login' yet" - that image not found error is given as an auth error message! There's stuff like this all through Docker, and I can see where the Rocket guys are coming from - Docker is spread too thin trying to do too much. Lots of corners get cut.
  • IanCal 12y ago
    > that image not found error is given as an auth error message! 404s are pretty common for that. Github, for example, returns "not found" pages for repos you can't access. Edit - however the login process is quite awkward, though set for improvement.
    • NeutronBoy 12y ago
      If only there were a separate error code to specifically indicate an authentication problem that could be returned...
      • ossreality 12y ago
        I'm all in favor of nitpicking some of Docker's awfulness, but returning a 400 for Bad Auth instead of 404 will leak information.
      • yrro 12y ago
        Github don't use the error code because to do so would leak information about the names of private repositories.
        • derefr 12y ago
          It would be more correct, then, to signal an authentication error for all nonexistent-and-or-private repos. After all, you aren't authorized to know whether a repo exists by that name or not... whether or not one actually does. (This would also imply that organization owners (and Github CSRs and ops staff) would simply bypass that check, falling through to a check only for existence, where it would be appropriate to return 404. A similar reasoning is behind why you get a 403, not a 404, when you try to get the index of an empty S3 bucket. Sure, it doesn't exist—but you're also not allowed to know that.
          • jacques_chester 12y ago
            Showing 404 to hide the existence of a resource is specifically called out as a suitable use in the RFCs: The 404 (Not Found) status code indicates that the origin server did not find a current representation for the target resource or is not willing to disclose that one exists. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.5.4 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.5.4
            • vacri 12y ago
              This being said, 403 is also valid in that same RFC, and makes more sense. "You are not authorised to know the status of this item" is more informative and less misleading than "This item doesn't exist". Everything should be auth-restricted by default (deny-by-default), except for items intentionally made public. In my example above, a 403 gives the correct nature of the fault without revealing any hidden information, whereas a 404 is demonstrably misleading.
• bryanlarsen 12y ago
  The enhancement I'm most looking forward to is the use of systemd for process management. Docker handles that itself, and can lose track if the process forks strangely and/or badly.
  • shazow 12y ago
    Like postfix. :/ People tend to wrap it with supervisord which does a better job at tracking child processes.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]