4 ms·
> running on the web the target so going to be primarily in-memory for a long time What do you mean by this? FS implementations I've seen (including lightning-
by jakear 3y ago
> running on the web the target so going to be primarily in-memory for a long time
What do you mean by this? FS implementations I've seen (including lightning-fs) use IndexedDB for the backing store, which is not "in-memory". I authored VS Code's web file system driver and it also uses IndexedDB, which I didn't see evidence of being memory-constrained. Furthermore, there's the File System Access API for web which is also not in-memory (I also authored VS Code's driver for that...)
- rektide 3y agoColor me impressed. I have been aware of indexeddb drivers, and I didn't investigate Vs code's driver (looked briefly through the PR but was short on time). I don't know why I don't credit that route enough. File System Access API just feels way to limited. There's so much missing stuff. No symlinks, no hard links, no xattr. I worry about what the user experience is going to be when the web api has so many limitations.
- jakear 3y ago> There's so much missing stuff. No symlinks, no hard links, no xattr. I worry about what the user experience is going to be Personally, I've never met a "normal" user who cares about any of those. You can try vscode.dev => explorer => "Open Folder" to see what the experience is like for yourself. I'd be interested to hear of the pain points, though I moved on from the project a while back.