New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Chain interface: drying up and splitting it in multiple ones #17668
Comments
Things suggested above sound good to me. There's a TODO comment with similar suggestions.
The |
Is this still an issue? |
From a quick read, I would say the suggestion about I don't have interest in doing a) or b) or d) in the coming future. I do have strong interest in c) and e) soon. From an issue-management standpoint, feel free to close the issue or re-dispatch the relevant informations elsewhere. |
I think a lot of what's discussed here is still relevant, but there's not really a need to keep the issue open. I think any new ideas that we don't want to forget about could be added to the TODO comment. Otherwise I don't think there's any decisions that need to be discussed or ongoing development that needs to be tracked. The chain interface is already a lot simpler than it used to be after #16426, and it could just be broken up a little more. |
Once #16426 merged, we should keep drying up the interface to make it fully asynchronously, few ideas to brainstorm on:
getHeight
,getBlockHeight
andfindFirstBlockWithTimeAndHeight
-style methods should be removed once rescan logic moved in its own thread behind the interface (I have already a functional branch for this)mempoolMinFee
) could be moved in its own Mempool::interface, client could care only about fee estimation, make it asynchronous tooinitMessage
,initError
and others could be moved in Node::interfacehandleRpc
and others, wallet should have its own RPC serverI think last two issues could be started today, they don't rely on any other PRs.
We may also have a
Broadcast
interface, tracking the chain state and broadcasting a tx are really 2 different logics.@ryanofsky pretty sure you have thoughts on it too.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: