ipfs-api support #9
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Open
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Note: not ready to be merged!
I'm opening this PR to track progress in implementing ipfs-api support.
Once implemented, ChluIPFS will be able to use any IPFS node that is exposing the HTTP API (go-ipfs included) and we will fix #3.
Unfortunately, I started working on this without realising that ipfs-pubsub-room does not work with ipfs-api: we use that library directly and it's also used by OrbitDB.
Relevant ipfs-pubsub-room issue: ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-pubsub-room#28
Relevant OrbitDB issue: orbitdb/orbitdb#273
We can't use ipfs-api, so we can't use go-ipfs until this gets solved somehow. This PR comes with a test that should pass if ipfs-pubsub-room solves the issue.