Record the FileSize in directories as well

[Stebalien]

Currently, sharded directories don't record the filesize (size of the directory) in the root. To be consistent with unix, we should do this.

[warpfork]

I question this.

An earlier comment in Issue#1 points out that the definition of "size" in directories has not been used consistently, historically.

I'd also consider that directory entry length info would make Issue#6 (seeking in dirs) interesting: any changes in entries would require republishing the root node. If we need iterables/pagination in IPLD in general... maybe this entry length info question should be put into that discussion?

[Stebalien]

any changes in entries would require republishing the root node.

We already need to do that as shareded directories are merkle trees.

An earlier comment in Issue#1 points out that the definition of "size" in directories has not been used consistently, historically.

I agree, I'd just like to be consistent. An alternative is to just get rid of directory sizes.

[warpfork]

We already need to do that as shareded directories are merkle trees.

... ow, right, I have no idea what I was thinking. I think some neuron reminiscing about atime propagation misfired there for basically no reason.

we need iterables/pagination in IPLD in general

I'm still cooking on this thought. Dirs seem like an instance of iterables. My feeble google/ddg-fu hasn't turned up any good links for "IPLD pagination" or "IPLD iterable" yet though. Maybe I'll make an issue in a bit if I still can't find any.

[kevina]

I am thinking we should just not use file size for directives and instead include the more useful count of the number of entries. See #9.

[rvagg]

closing for archival