Conversation
Signed-off-by: Yoni <yoni.wolf@intel.com>
yoni-wolf
requested review from
TomBarnes,
agunde406,
aludvik,
dcmiddle,
ineffectualproperty,
jsmitchell,
peterschwarz and
vaporos
as code owners
| [summary]: #summary | ||
|
|
||
| This RFC proposes an additional API to transaction context, | ||
| context.deletePrefix(address_prefix) which will get an address prefix as input |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we extend existing API and allow partial address?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could.
I thought in order to prevent TP developers from deleting prefix by mistake, the right approach will be to add a new API for this instead of adding capabilities to existing delete API.
Do you think it will be better to allow delete with prefix by extending existing API?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, this can however be controlled by outputs field in TransactionHeader.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What would extending the existing API look like?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@yoni-wolf please correct me, but I think that would look like the existing state delete call would take a list of address prefixes rather than a list of addresses. The validator would then need to distinguish each element of the list as between a full 70 character address as a single address or something less than 70 as a prefix.
Combining this: https://github.com/hyperledger/sawtooth-core/blob/master/protos/state_context.proto#L66-L70
With this: https://github.com/hyperledger/sawtooth-core/blob/master/protos/state_context.proto#L66-L70
@vaporos if that's not what you were asking please elaborate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Clarification was that this option should be included in the alternatives section.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added to the alternative section the option to use existing API instead of adding a new API
| # Prior art | ||
| [prior-art]: #prior-art | ||
|
|
||
| Access address by prefix is a key capability of radix tree. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is worded badly. In fact, I don't know that I would go so far as to even include prior art, since it is an extension of current Sawtooth - the Merkle-Radix trie - which that functionality made use of prior art.
Signed-off-by: Yoni <yoni.wolf@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Yoni <yoni.wolf@intel.com>
|
In several places it looks like two paragraphs are touching and it's not clear if they are meant to be separate paragraphs or whether it's one paragraph with sloppy line wrapping. In several places Sawtooth should be capitalized. |
dcmiddle
requested review from
agunde406
and removed request for
TomBarnes,
aludvik and
ineffectualproperty
Signed-off-by: ywolf <yoni.wolf@intel.com>
6 participants
Signed-off-by: Yoni yoni.wolf@intel.com