Open u2 opened 5 years ago
For kvdb, should we move hashdb.rs too?
If we don't plan to revisit current avl code in the future then it's ok to remove it.
I think our common contains too many crates. If we want to split db into even smaller crates, I think we should move some of crates out of common. Need a big plan here. For example, move all pubsub into pubsub repo. Move hash creates into hash repo.
Totally agree with you.
About merkel:
Do we consider to publish crates?
That depends, we have published some before, like rust-numext and static-merkle-tree.
CITA is almost stable, i think it's time to use the common(split crates) version as other crates.
What is the progress ?
What is the progress ?
Have finished partially, but I think we can do better, it's a long term improvement.
All the independent crates(will be) are maintained in this repo except cita-web3 and logger.
Maybe in the future instead of now.
The reason is that cita-common needs Cargo.lock
I consider we could move
kvdb
in a separate crate. What about removing theavl
or moving to another repo firstly, because it is written base on the trie, it's not well designed.