github.com/damirazo/docker@v1.9.0/ROADMAP.md (about) 1 Docker Engine Roadmap 2 ===================== 3 4 ### How should I use this document? 5 6 This document provides description of items that the project decided to prioritize. This should 7 serve as a reference point for Docker contributors to understand where the project is going, and 8 help determine if a contribution could be conflicting with some longer terms plans. 9 10 The fact that a feature isn't listed here doesn't mean that a patch for it will automatically be 11 refused (except for those mentioned as "frozen features" below)! We are always happy to receive 12 patches for new cool features we haven't thought about, or didn't judge priority. Please however 13 understand that such patches might take longer for us to review. 14 15 ### How can I help? 16 17 Short term objectives are listed in the [wiki](https://github.com/docker/docker/wiki) and described 18 in [Issues](https://github.com/docker/docker/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aroadmap). Our 19 goal is to split down the workload in such way that anybody can jump in and help. Please comment on 20 issues if you want to take it to avoid duplicating effort! Similarly, if a maintainer is already 21 assigned on an issue you'd like to participate in, pinging him on IRC or GitHub to offer your help is 22 the best way to go. 23 24 ### How can I add something to the roadmap? 25 26 The roadmap process is new to the Docker Engine: we are only beginning to structure and document the 27 project objectives. Our immediate goal is to be more transparent, and work with our community to 28 focus our efforts on fewer prioritized topics. 29 30 We hope to offer in the near future a process allowing anyone to propose a topic to the roadmap, but 31 we are not quite there yet. For the time being, the BDFL remains the keeper of the roadmap, and we 32 won't be accepting pull requests adding or removing items from this file. 33 34 # 1. Features and refactoring 35 36 ## 1.1 Security 37 38 Security is a top objective for the Docker Engine. The most notable items we intend to provide in 39 the near future are: 40 41 - Trusted distribution of images: the effort is driven by the [distribution](https://github.com/docker/distribution) 42 group but will have significant impact on the Engine 43 - [User namespaces](https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/12648) 44 - [Seccomp support](https://github.com/docker/libcontainer/pull/613) 45 46 ## 1.2 Plumbing project 47 48 We define a plumbing tool as a standalone piece of software usable and meaningful on its own. In 49 the current state of the Docker Engine, most subsystems provide independent functionalities (such 50 the builder, pushing and pulling images, running applications in a containerized environment, etc) 51 but all are coupled in a single binary. We want to offer the users to flexibility to use only the 52 pieces they need, and we will also gain in maintainability by splitting the project among multiple 53 repositories. 54 55 As it currently stands, the rough design outlines is to have: 56 - Low level plumbing tools, each dealing with one responsibility (e.g., [runC](https://runc.io)) 57 - Docker subsystems services, each exposing an elementary concept over an API, and relying on one or 58 multiple lower level plumbing tools for their implementation (e.g., network management) 59 - Docker Engine to expose higher level actions (e.g., create a container with volume `V` and network 60 `N`), while still providing pass-through access to the individual subsystems. 61 62 The architectural details are still being worked on, but one thing we know for sure is that we need 63 to technically decouple the pieces. 64 65 ### 1.2.1 Runtime 66 67 A Runtime tool already exists today in the form of [runC](https://github.com/opencontainers/runc). 68 We intend to modify the Engine to directly call out to a binary implementing the Open Containers 69 Specification such as runC rather than relying on libcontainer to set the container runtime up. 70 71 This plan will deprecate the existing [`execdriver`](https://github.com/docker/docker/tree/master/daemon/execdriver) 72 as different runtime backends will be implemented as separated binaries instead of being compiled 73 into the Engine. 74 75 ### 1.2.2 Builder 76 77 The Builder (i.e., the ability to build an image from a Dockerfile) is already nicely decoupled, 78 but would benefit from being entirely separated from the Engine, and rely on the standard Engine 79 API for its operations. 80 81 ### 1.2.3 Distribution 82 83 Distribution already has a [dedicated repository](https://github.com/docker/distribution) which 84 holds the implementation for Registry v2 and client libraries. We could imagine going further by 85 having the Engine call out to a binary providing image distribution related functionalities. 86 87 There are two short term goals related to image distribution. The first is stabilize and simplify 88 the push/pull code. Following that is the conversion to the more secure Registry V2 protocol. 89 90 ### 1.2.4 Networking 91 92 Most of networking related code was already decoupled today in [libnetwork](https://github.com/docker/libnetwork). 93 As with other ingredients, we might want to take it a step further and make it a meaningful utility 94 that the Engine would call out to instead of a library. 95 96 ## 1.3 Plugins 97 98 An initiative around plugins started with Docker 1.7.0, with the goal of allowing for out of 99 process extensibility of some Docker functionalities, starting with volumes and networking. The 100 approach is to provide specific extension points rather than generic hooking facilities. We also 101 deliberately keep the extensions API the simplest possible, expanding as we discover valid use 102 cases that cannot be implemented. 103 104 At the time of writing: 105 106 - Plugin support is merged as an experimental feature: real world use cases and user feedback will 107 help us refine the UX to make the feature more user friendly. 108 - There are no immediate plans to expand on the number of pluggable subsystems. 109 - Golang 1.5 might add language support for [plugins](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nr-TQHw_er6GOQRsF6T43GGhFDelrAP0NqSS_00RgZQ) 110 which we consider supporting as an alternative to JSON/HTTP. 111 112 ## 1.4 Volume management 113 114 Volumes are not a first class citizen in the Engine today: we would like better volume management, 115 similar to the way network are managed in the new [CNM](https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/9983). 116 117 ## 1.5 Better API implementation 118 119 The current Engine API is insufficiently typed, versioned, and ultimately hard to maintain. We 120 also suffer from the lack of a common implementation with [Swarm](https://github.com/docker/swarm). 121 122 ## 1.6 Checkpoint/restore 123 124 Support for checkpoint/restore was [merged](https://github.com/docker/libcontainer/pull/479) in 125 [libcontainer](https://github.com/docker/libcontainer) and made available through [runC](https://runc.io): 126 we intend to take advantage of it in the Engine. 127 128 # 2 Frozen features 129 130 ## 2.1 Docker exec 131 132 We won't accept patches expanding the surface of `docker exec`, which we intend to keep as a 133 *debugging* feature, as well as being strongly dependent on the Runtime ingredient effort. 134 135 ## 2.2 Dockerfile syntax 136 137 The Dockerfile syntax as we know it is simple, and has proven successful in supporting all our 138 [official images](https://github.com/docker-library/official-images). Although this is *not* a 139 definitive move, we temporarily won't accept more patches to the Dockerfile syntax for several 140 reasons: 141 142 - Long term impact of syntax changes is a sensitive matter that require an amount of attention 143 the volume of Engine codebase and activity today doesn't allow us to provide. 144 - Allowing the Builder to be implemented as a separate utility consuming the Engine's API will 145 open the door for many possibilities, such as offering alternate syntaxes or DSL for existing 146 languages without cluttering the Engine's codebase. 147 - A standalone Builder will also offer the opportunity for a better dedicated group of maintainers 148 to own the Dockerfile syntax and decide collectively on the direction to give it. 149 - Our experience with official images tend to show that no new instruction or syntax expansion is 150 *strictly* necessary for the majority of use cases, and although we are aware many things are still 151 lacking for many, we cannot make it a priority yet for the above reasons. 152 153 Again, this is not about saying that the Dockerfile syntax is done, it's about making choices about 154 what we want to do first! 155 156 ## 2.3 Remote Registry Operations 157 158 A large amount of work is ongoing in the area of image distribution and 159 provenance. This includes moving to the V2 Registry API and heavily 160 refactoring the code that powers these features. The desired result is more 161 secure, reliable and easier to use image distribution. 162 163 Part of the problem with this part of the code base is the lack of a stable 164 and flexible interface. If new features are added that access the registry 165 without solidifying these interfaces, achieving feature parity will continue 166 to be elusive. While we get a handle on this situation, we are imposing a 167 moratorium on new code that accesses the Registry API in commands that don't 168 already make remote calls. 169 170 Currently, only the following commands cause interaction with a remote 171 registry: 172 173 - push 174 - pull 175 - run 176 - build 177 - search 178 - login 179 180 In the interest of stabilizing the registry access model during this ongoing 181 work, we are not accepting additions to other commands that will cause remote 182 interaction with the Registry API. This moratorium will lift when the goals of 183 the distribution project have been met.