Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

interop: Add initial indexing api spec #283

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

ajsutton
Copy link
Contributor

@ajsutton ajsutton commented Jul 23, 2024

Description

Adds a spec for the first method in the "indexing backend" RPC API. This is designed to specify a standard API for tools that indexing logs across chains to optimise lookups for sequencing and verifying nodes. Written in a way that tries to be independent of any particular design for the indexer.

Still todo:

  • GetCrossUnsafe method
  • NextDeriveTask method
  • OnDerived method
  • CrossSafe method
  • TryFinalize method

@ajsutton ajsutton force-pushed the aj/supervisor-rpc branch 2 times, most recently from a7bf94d to 1136590 Compare July 23, 2024 04:28
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
# Indexing API
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thoughts on calling this the "Superchain API"?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm slightly against that because I think this is an entirely optional thing that could be used as part of implementing interop. Calling it Superchain API makes it sound like a critical component. While our implementation will depend on it, it's certainly possible to implement interop without it or with a different API if you make different architectural decisions.

@ajsutton ajsutton marked this pull request as ready for review July 25, 2024 03:30
@ajsutton
Copy link
Contributor Author

@protolambda I think we moved away from this approach again and should just close this right?

@protolambda
Copy link
Contributor

@ajsutton I am not entirely sure yet. We'll likely run into something like this as part of devnet 2 reorg support planning, although maybe we can simplify it. I'm fine with keeping this open for now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants