Skip to main content

Docker - it's all about the APIs

Early in Docker's history there was an partial uproar when Docker (the company) decided to patent, copyright, or otherwise encumber their APIs. I do not know if this is true or not but the chatter quickly subsided after the discussion lost momentum and for all intents Docker management never entered into the discussion.

Yesterday evening, with the day's events still fresh in my head, it finally occurred to me. The Docker APIs are going to be the thing! And a really big thing.

Docker offers a number of tools and source. But let's just consider Docker, Docker Machine and Docker Swarm; for the moment.

Docker (proper) the daemon manages specific containers

Docker (proper) the command line is an interface to the daemon through the APIs.

Docker Machine provides access to a Docker Server through various providers like AWS, VMware, GCE, etc... through plug-in drivers.

Docker Swarm provides cluster services and APIs by acting as a proxy to Docker Machine and Docker proper.

And finally there is the user, user interface and the backend service provider.


At this point all things are just a homogeneous Docker stack. What makes this powerful is that the APIs are generally consistent, well understood and popular.

But now what would happen if you have a homegrown orchestration platform built on your own unikernel implementation like MirageOS or Ling? What would happen if you have your own PaaS with your own APIs that perform the same basic functionality of Docker?

In the current model:  user -> user interface -> docker swarm -> docker machine(s) -> docker server.

But then there is my proposal: user -> user interface -> docker swarm -> docker machine(s) -> my docker shim -> my PaaS. And then if I'm running Docker Servers in my PaaS then I can proxy the commands:  my PaaS -> Docker server.

The benefit of this architecture, albeit early stage, Docker now becomes more about the APIs than the code. And so anyone can achieve true system composition from end to end.


Popular posts from this blog

Entry level cost for CoreOS+Tectonic

CoreOS and Tectonic start their pricing at 10 servers. Managed CoreOS starts at $1000 per month for those first 10 servers and Tectonic is $5000 for the same 10 servers. Annualized that is $85K or at least one employee depending on your market. As a single employee company I'd rather hire the employee. Specially since I only have 3 servers.

The pricing is biased toward the largest servers with the largest capacities; my dual core 32GB i5 IntelNuc can never be mistaken for a 96-CPU dual or quad core DELL

If CoreOS does not figure out a different barrier of entry they are going to follow the Borland path to obscurity.

UPDATE 2017-10-30: With gratitude the CoreOS team has provided updated information on their pricing, however, I stand by my conclusion that the effective cost is lower when you deploy monster machines. The cost per node of my 1 CPU Intel NUC is the same as a 96 CPU server when you get beyond 10 nodes. I'll also reiterate that while my pricing notes are not currently…

eGalax touch on default Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS

I have not had success with the touch drivers as yet.  The touch works and evtest also seems to report events, however, I have noticed that the button click is not working and no matter what I do xinput refuses to configure the buttons correctly.  When I downgraded to ubuntu 10.04 LTS everything sort of worked... there must have been something in the kermel as 10.04 was in the 2.6 kernel and 4.04 is in the 3.x branch.

One thing ... all of the documentation pointed to the wrong website or one in Taiwanese. I was finally able to locate the drivers again: (it would have been nice if they provided the install instructions in text rather than PDF)
Please open the document "EETI_eGTouch_Programming_Guide" under the Guide directory, and follow the Guidline to install driver.
download the appropriate versionunzip the fileread the programming manual And from that I'm distilling to the following: execute the answer all of the questio…

Prometheus vs Bosun

In conclusion... while Bosun(B) is still not the ideal monitoring system neither is Prometheus(P).


I am running Bosun in a Docker container hosted on CoreOS. Fleet service/unit files keep it running. However in once case I have experienced at least one severe crash as a result of a disk full condition. That it is implemented as part golang, java and python is an annoyance. The MIT license is about the only good thing.

I am trying to integrate Prometheus into my pipeline but losing steam fast. The Prometheus design seems to desire that you integrate your own cache inside your application and then allow the server to scrape the data, however, if the interval between scrapes is shorter than the longest transient session of your application then you need a gateway. A place to shuttle your data that will be a little more persistent.

(1) storing the data in my application might get me started more quickly
(2) getting the server to pull the data might be more secure
(3) using a push g…