Is it user-friendly to have 2 options, and if you don't supply both, nothing happens?

As an idea, if someone specifies 1 of them, does that indicate they are definately trying to activate the feature, and maybe the system should error and prompt them for the other option?

On 10/14/2013 08:51 PM, Brad Murray wrote:

Is it user-friendly to have 2 options, and if you don't supply both,
nothing happens?

As an idea, if someone specifies 1 of them, does that indicate they
are definately trying to activate the feature, and maybe the system
should error and prompt them for the other option?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2186 (comment).

That sounds like a smart addition. I'll make the commit and push it.

-Colin

+1. This is useful!

Pinging the core maintainers so this PR gets the review it deserves :-) /cc @creack @vieux @crosbymichael

Before merging, we will also need to:

• add documentation for those new flags in the documentation;
• possibly update Docker security information to mention those options;
• maybe add some support in the CLI client to establish SSL connections as well;
• allow the server to require a client-side cert;
• allow the client to provide such a cert.

I believe that the first two points will be necessary to merge; the last three might require a more significant rehaul of the option parsing so maybe it can be left for later. The maintainers will tell!

@c00w

Please add documentation around this new feature and an example setup would be great.

@crosbymichael
Add an example in docs/sources/examples and update commandline/cli.rst?

@c00w

Yes, I think both would be great.

@crosbymichael
I've added the documentation but am unsure how to build it and view it. Help?

@c00w

There should be a Dockerfile in the root of the docs folder that you can build and run to test the doc changes .

@crosbymichael Docs are updated. There didn't seem to be any server flag documentation so I added a basic segment. I'm not sure if its the right thing to do.

@c00w Can you please rebase these changes?

Rebasing isn't going to solve the problem, the structure of running in daemon mode changed completely and this code is going to have to be rewritten.

Ah, I'm sorry Colin, I know how it feels when that happens.
Do you still want to work on this? I believe that it would be very useful (especially as we ultimately get client-side and server-side cert authentication!)

Hey Colin, sorry about that. If you want to drop by irc (#docker-dev on freenode) we can walk you through the changes. It's not as bad as it looks. 90% of your code can probably stay the same, but moved around a little bit.

@solomonstre
@docker

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Jérôme Petazzoni [email protected]
wrote:

Ah, I'm sorry Colin, I know how it feels when that happens.

Do you still want to work on this? I believe that it would be very useful (especially as we ultimately get client-side and server-side cert authentication!)

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#2186 (comment)

I'm going to rewrite the patch but its probably going to take a bit
since I'm extremely busy with other things right now.

On 11/04/2013 09:59 AM, Solomon Hykes wrote:

Hey Colin, sorry about that. If you want to drop by irc (#docker-dev
on freenode) we can walk you through the changes. It's not as bad as
it looks. 90% of your code can probably stay the same, but moved
around a little bit.

@solomonstre
@docker

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Jérôme Petazzoni
[email protected]
wrote:

Ah, I'm sorry Colin, I know how it feels when that happens.
Do you still want to work on this? I believe that it would be very
useful (especially as we ultimately get client-side and server-side

cert authentication!)

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#2186 (comment)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2186 (comment).

Hi @c00w just a reminder that we are available to walk you through this on IRC.

I have one more request: could you add the same options to the client, so that there is still a way to use it when the daemon uses tls?

Thanks.

+1

this would be awesome 👍

I've rebased this PR and solved merge conflicts here: https://github.com/discordianfish/docker/tree/1745_HTTPS_Remote_client_api
Will also look into client implementation and client cert authentication now.

Closing in favor if #2996