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.

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

Abstract storage engine as an option #46

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

Conversation

hansonkd
Copy link

Hello,

Congrats on the great project! I am using it in something I am developing and thought I would contribute the changes upstream.

I wanted to abstract away the storage engine to be an option. I am using CubDB to build P2P sharable immutable trees: https://github.com/SoCal-Software-Labs/CrissCross

A simple example of how to build a merkle tree with CubDB with these changes:

https://gist.github.com/hansonkd/a0a974704a8483216dca2a1e79c00e62

I think this is really powerful because it allows you to abstract KV stores on top of whatever backend you want (you can add layers of caching or other middlewares too)

In addition the location type should be dependent on the store. That way a store can have whatever location object type it wants.

@lucaong
Copy link
Owner

lucaong commented Feb 15, 2022

Hello @hansonkd !
Thanks a lot for your contribution. I want to take time to review it properly these days. I am already working on the option to add caching to the Store (work is not pushed yet), so I am interested in options to make details about the backend configurable.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants