Started with this PR before we merged #8367. This solution would be more elegant.
This PR is more or less an announcement if someone wants to pick this up later. Its complete but requires testing maybe bug/nit fixing.
Should be considered once we add the next new feature to the wallet.
We already have this.
Wallets are key value, the key is effectively a feature flag.
On Jul 19, 2016 4:27 AM, "Jonas Schnelli" notifications@github.com wrote:
Started with this PR before we merged #8367 #8367. This solution would be more elegant.
This PR is more or less an announcement if someone wants to pick this up later. Its complete but requires testing maybe bug/nit fixing.
Should be considered once we add the next new feature to the wallet.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
#8369 Commit Summary
- [FOR LATER USE][WIP][Wallet] add support for a flexible "set of features"
File Changes
- M src/wallet/test/wallet_test_fixture.cpp https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8369/files#diff-0 (3)
- M src/wallet/wallet.cpp https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8369/files#diff-1 (57)
- M src/wallet/wallet.h https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8369/files#diff-2 (26)
- M src/wallet/walletdb.cpp https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8369/files#diff-3 (21)
- M src/wallet/walletdb.h https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8369/files#diff-4 (7)
Patch Links:
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub #8369, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAl4Q3aS7xcxIB2EwIUKalpOWYxfkJJvks5qXLStgaJpZM4JPoTb .
We already have this.
Wallets are key value, the key is effectively a feature flag.
I think this would not be sufficient. What if one of the values object format changes? Sure, it could be detected by the deserializing logic. But I think explicit required "features" would be much more flexible.
Needs rebase
Should this just be closed?
Should this just be closed?
Jup. Closing.