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

Feature/Replication Manager v3 #32

Closed
wants to merge 13 commits into from

Conversation

telamon
Copy link
Contributor

@telamon telamon commented Aug 29, 2019

Description

I've rewritten the replication management that was previously located in mux.js
and moved it out into a separate module.

The motivation behind the code separation was driven by the need to use a single
peer connection to replicate multiple 'multifeeds'.

Which in turn led me to the idea that replication and storage management dosen't necessarily
have to be done by the same module.

This enables multifeed to share a replication manager with other core stores or lazily
initialize it's own replication manager when replicate() or the new use() method is invoked.

Multifeed's tests were not modified and were used as proof of fittness for the new replication manager.
Due to the rewrite of error handling we're seeing new warnings during the test-suite run.

Which I believe is positive since we had no feedback nor handling during those states before.
I hope that I have improved the stability as a whole.

The new middleware API allows multifeed dependents to control replication on application level.

I wonder if it could be used to implement a cabal-core#55 exile-filter...

Todo

Tasks left before merge:

  • Merge latest multifeed. conflict resolved.
  • Add docs for the new use() method
  • Add docs for opts.headerOrigin

@telamon telamon mentioned this pull request Aug 30, 2019
@telamon telamon requested a review from hackergrrl September 2, 2019 13:23
@telamon telamon changed the title Feature/replic8 compat Feature/Replication Manager v3 Oct 6, 2019
@hackergrrl
Copy link
Member

Is this obsolete now that decentstack exists?

@telamon
Copy link
Contributor Author

telamon commented Oct 8, 2019

Hmm. no it's still the same experimental working branch. let me do a push to update it.

@hackergrrl
Copy link
Member

Based on some conversations with @telamon, we're not going to proceed with this specific approach. Thank you @telamon ❤️

@hackergrrl hackergrrl closed this Nov 19, 2019
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.

2 participants