kubelet: Remove docker container in prober's interface #5614
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Also change
kubelet.docketIDToRef[dockertools.DockerID]*api.ObjectReference{} to
kubelet.containerIDToRef[string]*api.ObjectReference{}.
|
This LGTM overall, we should consider having a strong type for container IDs though (they may be a string under the covers, but having the strong type gives us flexibility and a layer of checks). |
|
@vmarmol That makes sense. Do you mind if I do this in separate PRs which introduce the container runtime? Cuz I feels it might fit into |
|
Separate PR SGTM, merging this. |
vmarmol
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2015
kubelet: Remove docker container in prober's interface
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Also change
kubelet.docketIDToRef[dockertools.DockerID]*api.ObjectReference{}tokubelet.containerIDToRef[string]*api.ObjectReference{}.This is one of the steps we need to take to replace
dockerContainerwith more generic container types. #5526Whether to use
api.Containeror creating another one in the runtime is still under discussion:#5572 (comment)
Feedback welcome! Thank you!