MultiHashWrapper and Spawner are more appropriate to be libraries

[fulldecent]

Currently contract MultiHashWrapper is implemented as a contract. Because this module has no storage and no external functions, it is appropriate to implement this as a library.
Similarly for Spawner.

Recommendation: switch these to libraries
References:

• MultiHashWrapper implementation:

  erasure-protocol/contracts/modules/MultiHashWrapper.sol

  Line 10 in 4a3d98c

  contract MultiHashWrapper {

• Spawner implementation: https://github.com/erasureprotocol/erasure-protocol/blob/4a3d98ce023a264a9f3c7ba62ef77a9207bba5fe/contracts/modules/Spawner.sol

[thegostep]

@fulldecent Using a library for Spawner would add gas overhead of a delegate call for every clone produced. I don't see a benefit for it?

[fulldecent]

A "library" contract with no external functions is implemented a little differently.

... code of internal library functions and all functions called from therein will at compile time be pulled into the calling contract, and a regular JUMP call will be used instead of a DELEGATECALL.

https://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/v0.5.13/contracts.html#libraries

So basically contract and library are equivalent here and the choice can be made based on whichever is semantically preferred or easier to reason about.

[thegostep]

Ah, I see. Will keep as is for now