More DAG API goodness #123
Conversation
API/dag/README.md
Outdated
| - a CID in its String format concatenated with the path to be resolved | ||
| - `options` - a object that might contain the following values: | ||
| - `stream` - bool - if set to true, it will return a Node.js Readable Stream. | ||
| - `pull` - bool - if set to true, it will return a pull-stream. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dignifiedquire what is your take on this (options for streaming)? See #121
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not a big fan of this, if we want a streaming interface make it multiple methods, i.e.
.lscallback, no streaming.lsStreamnode stream.lsPullpull stream
or sth like that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removed comment about JS specific things, section is under JavaScript so makes sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dignifiedquire understood. Right now it is PITA because we have places where 'xStream' is returning a pull-stream, other places where there is an option (really legacy) for buffer: true and a lot of internals that are pull-streams and the 'external' (ie js-ipfs) is Node.js Streams for the sake of not breaking API.
I would be down to just sit, define a language for this different options (or through options object or through different methods) and then apply as a golden rule throughout all the modules.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, we should try unify this api, agreed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I'll come up with a proposal then based on things we've discussed. I've some cool ideas, I believe :D
src/dag.js
Outdated
| @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ module.exports = (common) => { | |||
| } | |||
| }) | |||
|
|
|||
| describe('.put', () => { | |||
| describe.only('.put', () => { | |||
| b: [1, 2, 3], | ||
| c: { | ||
| ca: [5, 6, 7], | ||
| cb: 'foo"' |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| ipfs.dag.get('zdpuAmtur968yprkhG9N5Zxn6MFVoqAWBbhUAkNLJs2UtkTq5/a', errOrLog) | ||
| // Returns: |
Given:
Tasks:
Other:
dag get --localResolvevsdag resolve#125