-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
Add to js-ipfs bundles #7
Comments
@jacobheun it would be great if pull-mplex (or future async/generators-mplex) was just the internals libp2p-mplex. There should be no need to have multiple concurrent implementations, there should just be, however, tons of tests to ensure the soundness of each of these migrations as Stream Muxing has been historically a PITA. |
For example, make sure to run the mega stress test https://github.com/libp2p/interface-stream-muxer/blob/master/src/mega-stress-test.js#L7 and compare both implementations. |
I agree. It was a bit easier to test the two side by side being separate but there are other ways to do that, but the new implementations should just be the libp2p-mplex internals. I think the stream muxers need more test in general, it's difficult to debug issues when they arise, so avoiding as many of those as possible up front with more in depth testing is ideal. Some mega stress test comparison runs:
|
@jacobheun those are great results!
Can this be done before importing it into js-ipfs bundle? |
It's already in the bundle and it's slated to get released with js-ipfs 0.36, which I believe is going out today. |
For those following, there is a new mplex version using those HAWT async iterators at libp2p/js-libp2p-mplex#94 |
This issue is for tracking the release of
pull-mplex
into js-ipfs, as a replacement forlibp2p-mplex
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: