Skip to content

Conversation

timkpaine
Copy link
Contributor

fixes #1767

@martindurant
Copy link
Member

Thanks for working on this!

@martindurant
Copy link
Member

Is there any need to explicitly consider async filesystems here?

Co-authored-by: Martin Durant <martindurant@users.noreply.github.com>
@timkpaine
Copy link
Contributor Author

timkpaine commented Oct 7, 2025

Is there any need to explicitly consider async filesystems here?

I would think this needs to be considered more generically, e.g. what happens if you chain an async fs inside a sync fs? I would think basically no implementations handle this right now. We could consider having

AbstractChainedFileSystem
ChainedFileSystem
AsyncChainedFileSystem

To provide the correct indications via inheritance.

@martindurant
Copy link
Member

It might just work already as a synch FS: in the case of the caching ones, it should only call the sync method variants on the target

@martindurant martindurant merged commit c23674c into fsspec:master Oct 9, 2025
10 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

CachedFileSystem is special in URL chaining

2 participants