Closed fewensa closed 2 years ago
Another advantage is that each bridge can set custom commands, such as https://github.com/darwinia-network/parity-bridges-common/blob/7be2b478b49bc8e87ddfe034076e9e80e2f126f6/relays/bin-substrate/src/cli/encode_call.rs#L38-L81
This might be a good approach, considering the complexity of dependancy management and long compile time(test/ci/cd).
But at the same time, we might still need a way to manage different bridge task services and share a common framework lib.
If we going to do this, split to multiple binaries should be straight forward, and I does not expect to much refactor work related to this.
https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/wiki/Third-party-cargo-subcommands
You can skip this sub-command management tool first, or consider fork cargo when you have time later, and change the name to bridger to manage different bridge relay commands in a similar way. It is recommended that the services of each bridge relay be separated and kept simple.
Description
With the increase of bridges, similar dependency problems will increase. maybe we can change a strategy and generate each bridge as a binary, like cargo
execute
for bridger
execute