> Why don't you store the data in IndexedDB? It can store blobs.
> All of WebTorrent's requirements in this thread ("use disk not memory")
appear to be met by IndexedDB.
This is true. I'll investigate IndexedDB for the described WebTorrent use
case.
Still, I maintain that filesystem support on the web platform could be
vastly better. No directory upload, no way to persistently read/write files
on disk, no way to stream files to disk. These improvements would help with
some less-common WebTorrent use cases.
Feross
Blog <http://feross.org/> | WebTorrent <https://webtorrent.io/> | Study
Notes <https://www.apstudynotes.org/>
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me> wrote:
> From: Olli Pettay [mailto:olli@pettay.fi]
>
> > On 10/06/2016 07:21 AM, Feross Aboukhadijeh wrote:
> >> The web really needs a proper filesystem to properly compete with
> >> native apps. I'd love to make WebTorrent (https://webtorrent.io) use
> >> the disk instead of in-memory storage, but there's no clear
> cross-browser solution. So, in the meantime, torrent data is stored in
> memory and lost when the user navigates to another page.
> >
> > Why don't you store the data in IndexedDB? It can store blobs.
>
> Exactly this. All of WebTorrent's requirements in this thread ("use disk
> not memory") appear to be met by IndexedDB.
>
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2016 00:02:00 UTC