gcloud module default to a container image

[saturnism]

Currently gcloud containers requires a user to put in an explicit image name. Will it be OK if we have a no-arg constructor that defaults to gcr.io/google.com/cloudsdktool/cloud-sdk:emulators?

Secondly, how about a 1-arg constructor that takes the gcloud version number, such as 317.0.0?

/cc @eddumelendez

[bsideup]

@saturnism this (no-args constructors and tag-only constructors) is exactly what we removed in 1.15.0 :D

There is an open issue about DX ( #3381 ). We got some ideas on how to improve it, but we needed more time and Docker Hub's rate limits were pressuring us :)

[saturnism]

I see. The gcloud containers are not hosted on Dockerhub and won't have the rate limit restrictions. Would the image name thing only be applicable to dockerhub hosted images?

[bsideup]

Sorry for confusing - these are two separate things: the team was busy delivering required changes for the rate limit restrictions so we didn't have time to improve the DX. But the decision to not expose default/tag-only constructors was independent from the rate limits and just something that we wanted to do for a long time to make it less confusing: #2839

[eddumelendez]

Closing for the reasons mentioned by Sergei.