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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

feat: add support for Named Records #6

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

feat: add support for Named Records #6

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
2b2bda1
feat: add support for Named Records
aschmahmann Jan 4, 2023
099c8da
switch to varint delimited list
aschmahmann Jan 11, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions IPNI.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -292,6 +292,12 @@ Specified protocols are expected to be ordered in increasing order.
* http
* the proposed `uvarint` protocol is `0x3D0000`.
* the following bytes are not yet defined.
* Named Record
* Protocol `uvarint` is <TBD> in the multicodec table
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Was originally going to go for something like 0x0920 but given these are strings we can certainly add another byte and go further up the table. Once we're reasonably happy here I'll open a PR on the code table and get the number.

* the following bytes should be:
* `uvarint` of the number of bytes in the name followed by the Name in bytes.
* Name should be a UTF-8 string
* `uvarint` of the number of bytes in the record followed by the Record bytes

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Side thread: What's the reason for "Specified protocols are expected to be ordered in increasing order." and will there be problems if the same protocol is specified in the same metadata multiple times? Trying to understand if this restriction will interact with this PR in a meaningful way.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The idea with the order is that you do not have to parse the entire metadata to find if the protocol ID you are looking for is supported or not as long as a protocol with larger ID is encountered.

#### ExtendedProvider

Expand Down