ErnoW
commented
1 year ago I understand your concern. The reason for this is the migration of moralis servers towards self-hosted servers, allowing more flexibility in the way you integrate Moralis. This package assumes a parse-server backend, which is not the case anymore in the future, as we are now compatible with any backend.
We will add packages for client-side for popular backends though, but it will look a bit different. Support for example for:
- parse-server (like with v1)
- expressJs
- firebase
- ... more upcoming
These integrations will have both server-side and client-side packages.
With these client-side packages you can call Moralis.authenticate or Moralis.EvmApi.nft.getWalletNFTs etc. (this is under development at the moment though and a big focus of us to bring the magic back to integrations in client-side apps)
It's a completely new setup, that is more flexible, keeping this package/name intact would conflict that as it is a specific use case (a client-side package for parse-server backend with Moralis)
Also dropping this as reference here where we explain a bit more about the switch to self-hosted servers: https://docs.moralis.io/docs/self-hosted-moralis-server
New Feature Request
Checklist
Current Limitation
Calling this package
moralis-v1when there is a v2 makes it seem like this is old tech. v2 is so completely different than v1 that you probably should have used a different name thanmoralis.I actually think v1 should keep the name
moralisand v2 should have been calledmoralis-serveror something new. v2 is not an evolution of v1. It is a completely different model focused on backends. v1 was actually fine for both clients and servers. I used it in a React SPA as well as a Remix server-side dapp.My recommendation:
moralismoralis-serveror something newOtherwise, consider:
moralis-client(anything butmoralis-v1please 🙏)moralis-serverAs an aside, it is frustrating to have v2 console warnings when they are not relevant to v1. See #9.