-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
Files API - How can we make it better for users #2883
Comments
I think we need to give some of the commands on ipfs/specs#98 a bit more thought. For example
What would be great is to support all three (as I see them) types of paths in all file commands (where it makes sense):
|
The spec on the existing behaviour of I can guess that the argument in the Is there a reason why it needs to take an array of two items and not an arguments list or named object properties? |
re: |
We can't perfectly disambiguate an local fs path from an mfs path from an IPFS path as you could have mounted ipfs in your local file system under We could do a best effort:
|
I'm running into issues where I want the files api to work on any unixfs node, not just ones in my local MFS. I can't |
Just bumped into this today. I've been using Yes, when I was first learning these methods it was confusing since some took cid, some took ipfs path, and some took mfs path, but right now there isn't even feature parity, which would be better than nothing :) |
js-mfs is coming. Soon. Really soon. |
I have a different idea for how the paths could be disambigued: How about having all MFS paths start with This way to would always be clear which file path is being referred to:
Since
But the unambiguousness of this solution IMHO beats the above two issues. We're also in Alpha still so backwards-incompatible changes can be made if really necessary. |
As per #1394 - progress information for |
Does this handle the case where the user has e.g. where would the files come from in this case:
|
No it does not, but we assume that |
Pong, I will get to this asap... |
@alanshaw does the files api proposal include changes for having items added via |
Distilling the convo from here ipfs-inactive/interface-js-ipfs-core#378, we essentially set on upgrading the Files API in 3 milestones:
@olizilla I am in favor of adding that property to an ipfs add and also getting closer to an "ipfs drive" notion which is very familiar to the users. For reference, another great thread to acquire more context is: ipfs/specs#98 |
Is the Files API open for feedback ? If so how can I provide it ? Or is this ship already has sailed ? |
I've just posted my feedback here https://via.hypothes.is/https://github.com/ipfs/interface-ipfs-core/blob/master/SPEC/FILES.md |
@Gozala the ship hasn't sailed yet, M3 aka https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/ipfsx is the Future™ Btw, love how you provided the feedback over hypothesis :) |
Somehow related to M3 (Revisit how the all the commands that touch files are designed), this discussion hints that our current Files API does not pass the red face test when we start explaining it to people ( I feel it is a good time to revisit the idea of cleaning up the MFS/Files API mess by starting fresh with better abstractions under something like Is this issue the best place to track this? |
js-ipfs is being deprecated in favor of Helia. You can #4336 and read the migration guide. Helia has no strong opinion about what the files API should look like (mostly due to these sorts of issues TBH), I look forward to everyone's creativity being unleashed! |
This is a thread to get a single discussion around ipfs/specs#98 and #1360 (comment) for the JavaScript land of IPFS.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: