-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
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
Suggestion: Decouple minting from storage and potentially throw out concept of storage from core SDK #22
Comments
@adamjeffries would love your opinion on that! |
couldn't agree more. very good points @israelidanny |
|
@aheckmann It's more of a question of layering. A low level SDK that deals with transactions , program addresses and basic things like that should provide the transactions to create a MetaData program account, for instance The ideal layering here would be to have a separate repo for the uploader / uploaders. This way you don't deal with extra dependencies / weight of axios, form-data in the base layer SDK. (which especially matters for browser bundle size) I'm not arguing against shipping an Arweave uploader. I just think it's bad layering shipping it in this repo. (which is very low level otherwise) |
Apparently we now have better layering: |
Make a Storage interface in JS SDK. Move implementation of various storage types out into their own modules. |
Storage is the main problem with smart contracts. Eth is outrageous and it killed most others. Agree implementations should be handled by their own module. I am looking at a method of using IPNS to point to the initial IPFS data then modify the IPFS file and change the hash in the IPNS. Data could have categories. As example the main data suchs as an image for NFT may not be changed, but other metadata and variable state could be updated when storage is needed. |
We were discussing it with @m-sebastiyan
The minting process is not layered enough in my opinion and depends too much on
uploadFile4
. I realize that it's an attempt at better UX, but it sacrifices good DX in return.My suggestions are:
uploadFile4
(or any future version of it) REST-ful parameters and let the SDK client user decide if they wanna use it.I think that the core SDK should be as skinny as possible and any attempt to introduce storage module awareness here will hurt that principle.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: