-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
Specs/ipfs storage engine #8
Merged
Merged
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
iam-robi
reviewed
May 23, 2023
|
||
- Transport: [TCP](https://github.com/libp2p/js-libp2p-tcp), [WebSockets](https://github.com/libp2p/js-libp2p-websockets) these two transports handle the connect in different way. TCP allowed you to handle connect natively but it's required to use `Node.js` run-time instead of browser based. WebSockets module work for both with the lesser performance. | ||
- Encryption: [noise](https://github.com/ChainSafe/js-libp2p-noise), we don't have any option since TLS didn't have any implement for JS. | ||
- Multiplexer: We have two options [mplex](https://github.com/libp2p/js-libp2p-mplex) and [yamux](https://github.com/ChainSafe/js-libp2p-yamux). Multiplexer improve the performance of protocol, node handling. `mplex` is preferable for `tcp` meanwhile `yamux` is prefer for `WebSockets`. |
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.
formulation not very clear to understand which option is preferred to the other
- Multicodec for information on how to interpret the hashed data after it has been fetched. | ||
- Multibase for information on how the hashed data is encoded. Multibase is only used in the string representation of the CID. | ||
|
||
In our implementation we use CID v1 and use `SHA256` + `base58`. I supposed that `poseidon` could be better in the long term so we need to make a poseidon proposal to `multihash`. |
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.
👍
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.
Feature type
Feature description
Update the specification of IPFS and IPFS Storage Engine
Pull request checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements: