On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:13 AM Ian Denhardt <i...@zenhack.net> wrote:
> For permanodes, the docs don't suggest that [timestamps] are required? > Sorry to be unclear; I was speaking about making timestamps optional for permanodes only, not claims. My belief that they are required comes from the API for schema.Builder. For something like my pkmail tool, I have a permanode that all e-mail messages ever imported become "camliMembers" of. I need that permanode to be predictable. If I create a Builder with NewPlannedPermanode, my only options are to get an unsigned blob (with Builder.Blob) or a blob signed at "now" (with Builder.Sign) or a blob signed at a given time (with Builder.SignAt). You may be interested in: > > https://perkeep.org/doc/schema/keep I'm interested in making blobs reachable (and indexable too) without needing separate claims. If I have a blob X that's a highly structured JSON object, where some of the JSON values are blobrefs, I'd like for Perkeep to consider the referenced blobs reachable if X is reachable regardless of any claims connecting X to other blobs. Fewer total blobs are needed this way, as long as no mutability is required, and complex trees of objects (like the headers, bodies, and attachments of a folder full of e-mail messages) can be reconstructed more easily and efficiently. But maybe that's just not the Perkeep Way... Cheers, - Bob -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Perkeep" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to perkeep+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/perkeep/CAEf8c4_BPJPjXDyYKCN17JbqNb%2BxGP5zm4Ft5-zEdoEXFedr8w%40mail.gmail.com.
