Orbit-db: Ditch IPFS PubSub in favor for a VerneMQ (A Distributed MQTT Broker)

Created on 27 Sep 2020 · 5Comments · Source: orbitdb/orbit-db

Hey!
So as cool as this implementation of Orbit DB is, I think it can be improved.
IPFS PubSub is a cool feature, but I think for a decentralized database, having a dedicated broker such as VerneMQ would be better.

Source

Clickative

Most helpful comment

I think it would be cool to have a way to insert single or multiple customizable ways to advertise heads similar to how other modules of orbitdb can be swapped with custom parts.

tabcat on 27 Sep 2020

👍4

All 5 comments

Thanks for the suggestion - unfortunately none of the OrbitDB maintainers have the bandwidth to switch the pubsub implementation over right now since we're working on 1.0 (see #819).

Happy to review a PR if you want to put the suggestion into code, but closing this in the meantime.

aphelionz on 27 Sep 2020

I think it would be cool to have a way to insert single or multiple customizable ways to advertise heads similar to how other modules of orbitdb can be swapped with custom parts.

tabcat on 27 Sep 2020

👍4

Ok, let's keep this open for consideration

aphelionz on 28 Sep 2020

Building on what @tabcat said. I think this is also important when thinking of security. If content has to be kept private it would be worth while to have a pluggable transport for private orbit-db databases.

vaultec81 on 4 Oct 2020

We shouldn't ditch (as in replace with something else) the current default pubsub module. There are several reasons why Libp2p-based pubsub is and should be the default pubsub system.

However, it is possible already to pass in broker module to OrbitDB, which would be used instead of the default ipfs-pubsub module. As long as the given broker implements the same API as orbit-db-pubsub, it should work with any messaging system.