Closed tischi closed 3 years ago
If we keep this logic, maybe we could rename remote to S3 and local to FS?
If we keep this logic, maybe we could rename remote to S3 and local to FS?
Yes, that's a good point. Also if we potentially want to support other object stores like GCS or ABS at some point.
ok, should we change spec? maybe something a bit more readable: s3object
, file
?
ok, should we change spec? maybe something a bit more readable:
s3object
,file
?
Yes, let's do it. I will change it this afternoon.
Do you mind if we call it s3store
instead? s3object
sounds like we are referring to a specific object in the object store.
s3store and fileSystem?
Update in the schema, the two projects on git that have branches with the new spec and in the example project.
Right now my code looks like this, only allowing for two image data locations (S3 and FS):
Not sure what to do here...