This repository was archived by the owner on Aug 11, 2021. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
feat/use new bitswap #51
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would really like to change this, currently we are going from having a
Block
, to this strange object, and inside bitswap back to aBlock
. Can we please make theBlock
interface sufficient so we can pass it through the whole stack?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wait, BlockService is blockAndCID and now bitswap is also blockAndCID, because bitswap needs to know CIDs, where do we in Bitswap move it to just Block?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks like the old inefficiency in bitswap is gone with the refactor, then I'm fine with this :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Btw, I would love to have something nicer, the
blockAndCID
isn't my favourite, but we really can't use something asBlock
right now unless we 'patch' it every time to have the right CID, which won't happen when reading from the repo, and there the only identifier is the multihash. Right now,Block
is really just a buffer + a convenience method that invokes multihashing, it might make sense to do what @kumavis brought up in the last call and just remove that type and do{ data: cid: }
objects all the way. (Still not convinced of what is simpler)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah ipfs-block should just wrap
{ data, cid }
ipld/js-ipld-block#25
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think with the info about the repo changes in go-ipfs we will have to rethink this anway.