I wonder if the stopContainer method name has become misleading and should be renamed. When I read this, my first thought was that this overall switch construct would stop containers but not explicitly remove them.

stop behaves like this for a long time (since forever?) of course (and differentiates from the semantics of Docker's container stop). So while I was always in favor of aligning our domain language to the Docker one, by now this would a such a breaking change of semantics in our API, I am unsure how to easily deliver it?

stopContainer specifically is a private method, and IIRC is only called by this and a stopAndRemove (public) method.

So maybe more do-able?

(+100 for aliging to docker's domain language)

Happy to add it to the scope - do you have naming recommendations? reapContainer? :D

@rnorth Ok you are right, I was mixing it up with our public stop() method, which will call stopAndRemoveContainer (which I consider confusing but hard to change).

@bsideup WDTY about just removeContainer, since this would be aligned with the methods for other Docker resources?

  public synchronized void performCleanup() {
      registeredContainers.forEach(this::stopContainer);
      registeredNetworks.forEach(this::removeNetwork);
      registeredImages.forEach(this::removeImage);
  }

sounds good to me 👍