Can (and should)`:mng` be based on an image built from hilbert-ui's Dockerfile?

[malex984]

Eric's suggestion:

Isn'it it better if the Dockerfile in hilbert-ui specifies it's requirements, volumes, port, etc. and then the Dockerfile for mng just uses

FROM hilbert-ui

???

That way the Dockerfile in hilbert-ui specifies its specific requirements, way of building, etc. and the one in mng only any extra things needed to interact with the rest of the system that are beyond the scope of hilbert-ui (if any).

Isn't this the idea of basing images on other images? Like a form of class inheritance?

[malex984]

We currently provide / share

• built infrastructure: DockerHub automatic builds and local Makefiles for local development
• Execution run-time via docker-compose

Therefore i would not like some completely different official image for no good reason.

Separation of a single :mng image was already discussed: it would be nice to have the following separate images (if easily possible):

• :backend with hilbert-cli-server and Dashboard's Backend server and
• :dashboard - just the Web UI part

As for the hierarchy: AFAIK Dashboard's Back-End server requires hilbert-cli-server management tool not the other way around. Therefore i would propose the following new official images to be added to hilbert-docker-images:

• :backend-cli with hilbert-cli-server for direct testing of hilbert-cli-server and low-level configuration management
• :backend-dashboard - based on above, with Dashboard's Backend server.

[elondaits]

I don't understand how what you're saying relates to my question and I don't care to discuss the structure of this repository, so I'll ask it differently:

Since:

• Building the mng image has lines specific to hilbert-ui (npm install, exposed ports, etc.) that might change with future versions of hilbert-ui
• I understand that an image can be based on another image adding extra things on top of it, as a form of inheritance.

Isn't it a good idea to:

• Base the mng image on a hilbert-ui image built through the hilbert-ui Dockerfile?
• Perhaps base the hilbert-ui image on a hilbert-cli image that would be ubuntu + hilbert-cli?

[malex984]

Sorry, i really don't like the idea of diverging from existing & working approach to managing docker images! Too many downsides due to using something directly unmanageable in the middle of image inheritance chain!

Base the mng image on a hilbert-ui image built through the hilbert-ui Dockerfile?

Note that currently mng image is based on hilbert-ui's Dockerfile but extends hilbert-ui with hilbert-cli-server tools and is consistent with our run-time!

So why not stick to hilbert-docker-image/images/mng and update it whenever necessary.

Perhaps base the hilbert-ui image on a hilbert-cli image that would be ubuntu + hilbert-cli?

Yes. Possible (but hilbert-cli should better be based on nodejs).

May we consider a separate image, say backends, which is based on nodejs combining

• dashboard's back-end server (e.g. without nginx and WebUI content) with
• hilbert-cli-server tools ?

Then the remaining client parts of hilbert-ui (e.g. nginx and static WebUI content) would require no special basement and can just link with backends though network in run-time.

What do you think about such a separation of hilbert-ui into 2 loosely connected parts? Would it be 1. possible 2. sensible 3. simple thing to do?

[malex984]

For consistency hilbert/mng is part of standard hilbert/ hierarchy and auto-build system. It is based on hilbert/nodejs, which contains the following NodeJS: v4.8.4 and npm: 2.15.11.

[malex984]

i do not think we should change anything here