You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now the module system is defined in the consensus package and requires that many interfaces and structs must be defined in this package resulting in stronger coupling between the different modules than what is desirable. Ideally, the module system should not be required to know about the different module types that it can support up front.
It is not clear to me if what I'm proposing is possible... That is, I'm creating this issue without having reviewed the code in-depth, and so do not have good advice to offer at the moment. However, it might be possible to take advantage of generics in such a refactoring effort.
Perhaps we could prepare a design doc to better understand the requirements, challenges, and possible design alternatives.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Right now the module system is defined in the
consensus
package and requires that many interfaces and structs must be defined in this package resulting in stronger coupling between the different modules than what is desirable. Ideally, the module system should not be required to know about the different module types that it can support up front.It is not clear to me if what I'm proposing is possible... That is, I'm creating this issue without having reviewed the code in-depth, and so do not have good advice to offer at the moment. However, it might be possible to take advantage of generics in such a refactoring effort.
Perhaps we could prepare a design doc to better understand the requirements, challenges, and possible design alternatives.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: