From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 887DEE97 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:30:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com (mail-lb0-f175.google.com [209.85.217.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2BF9161 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:30:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbvd4 with SMTP id d4so9483850lbv.3 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:30:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/7zVmVxHQcLrHUDvE6p376zKSbWYqyAW4ozvwLgOxFU=; b=Tnds5uGeu1uau3zU3OwkbX1k+VhgbWDwYtFtySowzH2eMrjk5OHr6/ARrIMnAlKHcg rb5N+3ZcPaz3mJjdOj1LmWS2a05LP1cSwPlRKYWHj7x8e6MmiwaWs7+HA1lwOetnyYU8 5FmotUA+G3fFNBxlvb20qjXieXK6p6besfceOkNaWYF5LO95Xclrl1/Ao8YLC0v2Bd+a gULHggAIRa0kdApbbI3LWeDYhx7X6Qdff7a7GAPQLbs1AmMNUsCzu4f7bmkFFBJtu0eH BWF/LVDfjn3Z6JISSRChUYnJ5xkaIvJxv4BzXIt1mOBQWLjUTKsuzQZuN0w8cTf5QKhW t58g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmIQ2NUuPsAJ8FGDnW6aTYnLNF7GL0ULI6YooFa0XykBHdz1hNNcwSAAdb4XV+IPtin72WY MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.219.3 with SMTP id pk3mr7582589lac.114.1440891039124; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:30:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <22CF03CB-7A4B-44D9-8989-22798795BB16@bitsofproof.com> References: <55B723EA.7010700@voskuil.org> <55B939CF.1080903@voskuil.org> <3390F712-879A-46E9-ABCD-D35B51190304@bitsofproof.com> <22CF03CB-7A4B-44D9-8989-22798795BB16@bitsofproof.com> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 01:30:39 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Tamas Blummer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Libbitcoin Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Libconsensus separated repository (was Bitcoin Core and hard forks) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:30:41 -0000 On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Tamas Blummer wrote: > I see the huge amount of sweat and love that went into core and it actually > hurts to see that most is expended in friction and lack of a vision for the > software architecture. > > To be concrete, this was my plan if dealing with the Core code base: > > 1) I'd consider the separation of networking and storage as suggested for a > future extended libconsensus low priority, as their design should be (are) > dominated by the need of the consensus logic only. > > 2) create an API to the consensus+networking+storage service that is not at > the C++ language level but some scaleable cross-platform remoting, like eg. > ZeroMQ. > This API should be minimal and simple, assuming that one fully trusts the > node answering it. This API would unlock user land development by distinct > teams with diverse technologies. I plan to replicate the RPC API (or a subset of it) using ZMQ's req/rep pattern, but #6103 comes first. > 3) move the wallet, QT and RPC and other backward compatibility stuff (if > e.g. there is some mining support) in-top of the new API and into distinct > source code repositories. Well, the RPC is the API. For libconsensus, its C API is the API. We've been talking about separating the wallet and qt to a different repository for long, but modularization is a prerequisite.