Are the recommendations for targets x shiny still valid for the new release?

[cpauvert]

Hi @wlandau,
Thanks for creating and maintaining {targets}! I am a new user and am planning to use {targets} with {shiny} as you showcased in this repository.

I was wondering whether if you consider that the recommendations listed in this repository (regarding persistent storage for instance) still holds with the recent releases of {targets}?

Indeed, the documentation here mentions an early release of {targets} as well as features in development:

targets-shiny/README.md

Line 16 in 00e792e

This app requires `targets` >= 0.5.0.9000, which is still in development at the time of writing.

With the new release (1.3.0) of {targets} on the CRAN, I was wondering if you would do things differently for the integration of {shiny} and {targets}?

Best,

[wlandau]

The data/metadata cloud storage capabilities in targets 1.3.0 will generally be a better fit that local storage: https://books.ropensci.org/targets/cloud-storage.html. However, in cases when cloud storage is not desired or feasible, I think the general pattern in this repo is still useful.

[cpauvert]

That was quick, thanks! Ok noted! Is the mechanism for cloud storage in targets generic enough to use custom S3 bucket? Say from academic institutions? If this question is too targets specific and should be on the adequate repository, let me know.

[wlandau-lilly]

Yes, custom buckets and endpoints are possible.