search

lightningdevkit / lightning-liquidity

Other
27 stars 17 forks source link

Project structure / Naming conventions #1

Closed tnull closed 10 months ago

tnull commented 1 year ago

For now I created the following submodules in the crate:

I however wonder if we should follow the namespacing introduced in the LSPSs and structure the crate along the lines of crate::lsps0::.. etc.

A question arising from this would then how to deal with datatypes shared between LSPSs...

tnull commented 11 months ago

It seems current sentiment in the spec group is is to not have LSPS4 rename to LSPS2v2. It's probably therefore best to rename and restructure this crate along the lines of the LSPS numbers, i.e., have the modules named: lsps0, lsps1, lsps2, etc.

Moreover, we should really rename the crate as a whole. Given we might want to upstream it eventually, we could consider already renaming it to lightning-liquidity-management or lightning-liquidity-tools.

I'd likely want to do this once #20 lands, and before we cut an intial alpha release. (cc @johncantrell97)

johncantrell97 commented 11 months ago

sounds good, can do the renaming and restructuring post merge. I agree the name of the crate is horrible. I think those suggestions are already much better but might be too broad?

I could imagine there being other liquidity management tools (swaps, liquidity ads, etc.) that might not belong in this crate? I guess they could end up in here?

tnull commented 11 months ago

I could imagine there being other liquidity management tools (swaps, liquidity ads, etc.) that might not belong in this crate? I guess they could end up in here?

Yeah, that's a good point. Given that we call the main object LiquidityManager, we might actually consider whether it could support these other Liquidity things if they were added eventually?

jkczyz commented 11 months ago

Moreover, we should really rename the crate as a whole. Given we might want to upstream it eventually, we could consider already renaming it to lightning-liquidity-management or lightning-liquidity-tools.

I'd opt for something short like lightning-liquidity. If you use a longer name, someone can come around later and take the shorter one and get more eyeballs / feel more canonical.

tnull commented 10 months ago

Alright. After discussion out-of-band, current sentiment seems to be to a) rename the crate to lightning-liquidity, b) rename the modules to use the lspsX format, and c) to further modularize and expose the codebase so that, for example, third parties can opt to just reuse our message types/serialization, or, just a specific LSPS implementation, preferably in a non LDK-dependant manner. To this end we'll need to make sure that not too many LDK types leak into the 'inner' part of the codebase.

As there seems to be consensus on this, I'm closing this and will reopen issues to track these action items individually.