lix/fs local, indexdb-storage for caching and persistency

[samuelstroschein]

Problem

1. Unpushed changes are not persistent, leading to Editor: Multiple translations in one commit #583 (comment).
2. Caching previously opened repository could vastly speed up loading times.

Proposal

Implement a local storage filesystem that can be used for finnk

import { createLocalStorageFs } from "@lix-js/fs"

const nodeishFs = await createLocalStorageFs()

[NiklasBuchfink]

Vision wise

Building a local storage filesystem with project-lisa could make us full local first with all its benefits and makes lisa apps easy to convert in a PWA.

For me, the biggest benefit is that we take full control from remote to local. This makes it easier to:

• make automation between lisas local storage and remote filesystem
• introduce best practices and smart defaults
• ship performance improvements through better orchestration of file handling between local and remote
• coordinate clients

On the last point: Because updates from remote or other clients can be applied directly; unpushed changes are cached locally and applied in addition to the latest updates. Merge conflicts are indicated at the time they occur. In the case of a peer-to-peer connection between clients, we should mark the lines other collaborators are working on or currently have local changes so that this information can be displayed to users on the front end.

Related issue

Can this be closed in favor of this proposal #714

---

I think you forgot to tag the @inlang/project-lisa team

[samuelstroschein]

Can this be closed in favor of this proposal #714

No. #714 and this discussion (#1042) are two separate pair of shoes.

It seems like you are confusing opening local repositories (#1055) with caching remote repositories in the browser local storage feature (#1042). Using a local-storage filesystem has likely nothing to do with automation, performance improvements, or the coordination of clients. Local storage just enables a persistency layer in the browser.

[NiklasBuchfink]

Alright, I got that mixed up, thanks for the clarification👍

[janfjohannes]

we have a ticket for this #714

[janfjohannes]

sidenote: this feature should not use localstorage api, but most probably indexeddb but this can change and is part of the implementation planning

[janfjohannes]

agreement on the proposal, exact api and implementation details will be part of the feature planning when this is started.