Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

daemon naming #232

Closed
jbenet opened this issue Oct 29, 2014 · 8 comments
Closed

daemon naming #232

jbenet opened this issue Oct 29, 2014 · 8 comments

Comments

@jbenet
Copy link
Member

jbenet commented Oct 29, 2014

Should we be naming it "daemon" or "ipfsd"? I think "ipfsd" plays more to what people expect.

@jbenet
Copy link
Member Author

jbenet commented Oct 29, 2014

cc @whyrusleeping @maybebtc @mappum @cryptix

@btc
Copy link
Contributor

btc commented Oct 29, 2014

Which of these are you thinking?

a) .../bin/ipfs ipfsd
b) .../bin/ipfsd

@jbenet
Copy link
Member Author

jbenet commented Oct 29, 2014

@maybebtc ipfs ipfsd looks weird, so maybe ipfs daemon and ipfsd would be the same?

@jbenet
Copy link
Member Author

jbenet commented Oct 29, 2014

But I mean more in general, when referring to it in docs, tour, etc.

@btc
Copy link
Contributor

btc commented Oct 29, 2014

I don't have any answers... just lenses.

a) is weird. Agreed

b) introduces a new binary. This may introduce complexity to the develop/deploy/use workflow. For instance, In the wild, it would be marginally easier to end up with mismatched versions, daemon/client incompatibility hiccups. On the other hand, ipfsd could make for good documentation.

Would it be referred to as [i] "the ipfsd daemon" or [ii] "ipfsd, the ipfs daemon" or [iii] "ipfsd", omitting the word daemon entirely?

c) ipfs daemon is a bit unorthodox, but certainly friendly and approachable.

d) ipfs -d is used widely and deserves mention, but doesn't address your concern about communication at all.

@fd
Copy link
Contributor

fd commented Oct 29, 2014

How about having a single binary (as is the case now) which has a daemon command (ipfs daemon). Then allowing a ipfsd symlink to the binary which serves as shorthand for ipfs daemon. Then ipfs only has to check argv[0] for the name of the invoked command.

ls -l bin
ipfs 
ipfsd -> ./ipfs

then the following is equivalent:

ipfs daemon
ipfsd

@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

im a fan of ipfsdbut i also see how it could get into a weird version mismatch state. So i think that ipfsd should be a shell script that locates the ipfs binary, and runs ipfs daemon with optional parameters

@btc
Copy link
Contributor

btc commented Oct 29, 2014

Given what I know now, +1 ipfsd

ariescodescream pushed a commit to ariescodescream/go-ipfs that referenced this issue Oct 23, 2021
@aschmahmann aschmahmann mentioned this issue Dec 1, 2021
80 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants