From d2a1348c2dad5682ff04e60d197e95a9f3338483 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tycho garen Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 16:37:28 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] answer questions --- .../adr-069-flexible-node-intitalization.md | 20 ++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/architecture/adr-069-flexible-node-intitalization.md b/docs/architecture/adr-069-flexible-node-intitalization.md index 7c630d7f4..2cb510452 100644 --- a/docs/architecture/adr-069-flexible-node-intitalization.md +++ b/docs/architecture/adr-069-flexible-node-intitalization.md @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ ## Status -Proposed +Proposed. ## Context @@ -91,24 +91,38 @@ point, a cluster of dependencies can be wrapped as a single the legacy p2p stack? Would it be possible to delay a great deal of this work to the 0.36 cycle to avoid this complexity? + - Answer: _depends on timing_, and the requirement to ship pluggable + reactors in 0.35. + - There's clear and common interest in injecting some kind of mempool, and intuitively this makes sense as the highest priority. - Does the existing `mempool.Mempool` interface make sense to expose and commit to, or should we make a smaller interface? + - Answer: _yes_, smaller mempool interface is better. + - Is it reasonable for users to bring their own mempool without bringing their own reactor? + + - Answer: _probably not_, but this might be a function of how the + current implementations work and can be refactored. - Are there reactors, other than the mempool, that make sense to support ad-hoc replacing (e.g. statesync, blockchain (fastsync),) and if so should we provide any first-class support for this? + - Answer: _defer_. Certainly this shouldn't be attempted until after + there is a refactor of the consensus reactor. Is more likely than + block/fast sync. + - There's a dependency (and nearly a cycle), between consensus, blockchain (fastsync), which makes it very hard to allow meaningful injection of any of these components without allowing injection of - all of them (statesync provider as a - possible exception.) Is this acceptable? + all of them (statesync provider as a possible exception.) Is this + acceptable? + + - Answer: _yes_. ## Future Work