Draft
Conversation
Member
|
I like this approach. Another idea I had was to give the "d" tag a second parameter, something like this: [
["d", eventId, "e"],
["e", eventId, ...rest],
]or: [
["d", pubkey, "p"],
["p", pubkey, ...rest],
]When the "d" tag has this extra parameter, there MUST be a matching tag. |
Contributor
|
the current filter/event model is complex (better to say dynamic) enough to be hard to store and query efficiently. i think putting more dynamic rules on them just makes the relay implementation more complex. also makes them inefficient. also clients. if i understand this nip correctly, it will affect a lot of stuff in the processing |
Contributor
|
I don't think this is worth it. Adding a 'd' tag that matches the 'e' or 'p' or 'a' isn't that much overhead, but it is a lot of coding to do it this way. |
Closed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This might be a solution to the #1501 conundrum (we can just grandfather in that specific kind like we did with normal replaceables and kinds
0and3).And also address #1506 and other similar issues that will certainly arrive in the future.
Just a preliminary idea.