docker container names

[benjamine]

Hi, I noticed that container names created by fig always have a number on their name:

DATABASE_1_PORT=tcp://172.17.0.32:5432
DATABASE_1_PORT_5432_TCP=tcp://172.17.0.32:5432
DATABASE_1_PORT_5432_TCP_ADDR=172.17.0.32
DATABASE_1_PORT_5432_TCP_PORT=5432
DATABASE_1_PORT_5432_TCP_PROTO=tcp

I suppose the reason is there could be multiple containers running the same image (database), but that seems to violate the "principle of least suprise" to me, I wonder if could prevent this by making 1st container not be numbered, as that's the case for most people.
In other words change database_1 to just database, and add numbers for 2,3,4 to the rest if there's any.
I think that would help newcomers (like me) thoughts?

[aanand]

Yeah, have a look at #37 - we should be adding a link alias without a numeric suffix.

[benjamine]

ok, but I don't think there's any problem with env vars, in any case that's for docker to decide.
what is fig to decide is how to name containers, and as you comment here, the added _1 is what makes it confusing, or should I say unexpectable.
In other words, I think the web container should be named web

[d11wtq]

The problem if you name the web container just 'web' in docker, is that you are then limited to running one project at a time. If you have two projects that both have a service 'web' (which is extremely likely in a company that develops microservice like where I work), they will clash. You at least do need to prefix the project name, but you don't need the _1 on the first instance, I agree.

[benjamine]

exactly, you can start adding numbers for 2, 3 and 4, but the vast majority of use cases you only use 1, so I would make it simple for them.

[d11wtq]

Agreed. PR welcomed

[benjamine]

cool, just sent #349 to solve this