-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
ABI 0.2 (part 1/2) #3
base: wrap-0.2-dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Do we want to target a different branch that will act as more of a "staging" branch for wrap 0.2? I think
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have left some comments.
{ | ||
uri: "lib2", | ||
type: "wasm", | ||
id: "0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What if we use IPFS hash of the abi as id?
It's guaranteed to be unique and since content addressable no need to embed the imported abi.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The goal of the "id" is to be a (1) small in size & (2) efficient to lookup (i.e. strcmp). The URI does not satisfy these things in my opinion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe it has its own benefits as I discussed and we should compare both and see which is a better way going forward.
Responded @Niraj-Kamdar, would you feel comfortable approving in its current state? |
This PR includes: