Post

PART TWO: All the other reasons i don't like CARs for atproto repo exports! In this one: ambiguities and inefficiencies. (the biggest problem is already hopefully getting fixed in the IETF draft though, yay!)

data-service-diaries.pckt.blogWar on CARs: the rest of itPart 2: streaming struggles, bad blocks, worthless weight, and superfluous structure in Content Addressable aRchives

23/9/26, 3:10 pm8 reposts54 likes

dorian

@doriantaylor.com

23 Sept

tangentially related, i have been contemplating a CNAR archive format (content-negotiated archive) for representational variants of the same logical objects

fig (aka:[phil])

@bad-example.com

23 Sept

interesting. like a container with multiple possible encodings inside? (hubble supports http content negotiation for star-lite vs car format for `getRepo`, but leaves it at the transport layer)

dorian

@doriantaylor.com

23 Sept

yeah like apache has already had a type map format (which is basically just a list of headers and quality scores and variants) for god, probably close to 30 years now httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod... whether it ends up using that or something else is still up in the air but determinism is the key

httpd.apache.orgmod_negotiation - Apache HTTP Server Version 2.4

dorian

@doriantaylor.com

23 Sept

i am a huge fan of conneg (and have been since i first learned about it circa i dunno, 2000?) imo it's one of the essential advantages of web-based information resources over just plain files, but i can understand the positions of eg the ipfs people that it complicates things