Naming is hard: Provider used incorrectly in current design

[cds-amal]

contract ArbitrumProvider is ArbitrumMethods { /* ... */}

It occurs to me that ArbitrumProvider is misleading as it represents a subset of ArbitrumMethods. MaybeSupportedArbitrumMethods is a better choice. Provider should represent a DIN provider or candidate that has a number of SupportedMethods and possibly some RPS capability commitments.

• @twhay correct - Provider is a role within the network, and would be associated with methods, networks, an address (contract or EOA, should be up to the provider to declare)

Todo

• [ ] Rename ArbitrumProvider to SupportedArbitrumMethods
• [ ] SupportedArbitrumMethods should not inherit from ArbitrumMethods, but have a reference to a deployed ArbitrumMethods contract.
• [ ] Tests will have to be updated, or may be unnecessary

[cds-amal]

There is a new class diagram:

[cds-amal]

closing this because the updated design doesn't need this.