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

Expose corenet API #2765

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Expose corenet API #2765

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

magik6k
Copy link
Member

@magik6k magik6k commented May 27, 2016

This is continuation of #2005 , still WIP.
What it allows is to communicate in real-time using ipfs identities and libp2p. Currently the implementation uses websockets to communicate with daemon, and it implements channels over them, so the listener can handle more than 1 client at a time. Usage is still much like it was in #2005, but quite a few internals changed. I managed to set-up TAP tunnel over IPFS between 2 hosts using little helper program, so I think I can say that it at least works.
What needs to be done:

I'm opening this now so that people can see the progress and comment on what is done.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 27, 2016

I haven't looked at the rest yet, but for API communication, @Kubuxu's unix socket proposal is very relevant: ipfs/notes#129

@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

Yeah, this change is going to be (at least) two parts, the first being making the API transport more flexible, and the second is the actual exposing of the corenet stuff. lets start working towards part 1, sound good @Kubuxu ?

@Kubuxu Kubuxu added the status/in-progress In progress label May 30, 2016
@magik6k magik6k force-pushed the feature/corenet branch from d6e7efa to f2e9844 Compare June 6, 2016 13:43
magik6k added 2 commits June 6, 2016 15:56
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Łukasz Magiera <magik6k@gmail.com>
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Łukasz Magiera <magik6k@gmail.com>
@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

@magik6k can this be closed in favor of #3128 ?

@magik6k
Copy link
Member Author

magik6k commented Sep 15, 2016

Yep, the other one implements the same thing.

@magik6k magik6k closed this Sep 15, 2016
@Kubuxu Kubuxu removed the status/in-progress In progress label Sep 15, 2016
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants