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

[FOR LATER USE][WIP][Wallet] add support for a flexible "set of features" #8369

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@jonasschnelli
Member

jonasschnelli commented Jul 19, 2016

Started with this PR before we merged #8367.
This solution would be more elegant.

This PR is more or less an announcement if someone wants to pick this up later.
Its complete but requires testing maybe bug/nit fixing.

Should be considered once we add the next new feature to the wallet.

@pstratem

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

pstratem commented Jul 19, 2016

We already have this.

Wallets are key value, the key is effectively a feature flag.

On Jul 19, 2016 4:27 AM, "Jonas Schnelli" notifications@github.com wrote:

Started with this PR before we merged #8367
#8367.
This solution would be more elegant.

This PR is more or less an announcement if someone wants to pick this up
later.
Its complete but requires testing maybe bug/nit fixing.

Should be considered once we add the next new feature to the wallet.

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

#8369
Commit Summary

  • [FOR LATER USE][WIP][Wallet] add support for a flexible "set of
    features"

File Changes

Patch Links:


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#8369, or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAl4Q3aS7xcxIB2EwIUKalpOWYxfkJJvks5qXLStgaJpZM4JPoTb
.

@jonasschnelli

This comment has been minimized.

Member

jonasschnelli commented Jul 20, 2016

We already have this.

Wallets are key value, the key is effectively a feature flag.

I think this would not be sufficient.
What if one of the values object format changes? Sure, it could be detected by the deserializing logic. But I think explicit required "features" would be much more flexible.

@jtimon

This comment has been minimized.

Member

jtimon commented Jan 23, 2017

Needs rebase

@TheBlueMatt

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

TheBlueMatt commented Jul 11, 2017

Should this just be closed?

@jonasschnelli

This comment has been minimized.

Member

jonasschnelli commented Jul 11, 2017

Should this just be closed?

Jup. Closing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment