Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
CIP-0030 | Encourage namespaced extension endpoints #577
CIP-0030 | Encourage namespaced extension endpoints #577
Changes from 4 commits
717b05a
3a913c9
bc52762
a4af1f3
ba02ab5
2d7d6b6
81e1ba3
f17bfab
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For me, it is unclear how a DApp will use these namespaced methods.
Let's take signTx usage as an example:
Which signTx will the DApp use?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a good question! and I think the answer would depend on how CIP-1234 defines it's
signTx
.For me, I think it is best that extensions completely replace other extensions capabilities rather than dApps needing two extensions to do the same thing; such as signing transactions. So my preferred approach would be for CIP-1234 to be supporting all of the CIP-95 capabilities and it's own at once. This would prevent the need for dApps to support two extensions for the same purpose.
I also don't see this as a massive issue, as I don't see there being a massive emergence of conflicting extensions.
With that said, CIP-30 as it stands today would does allow for such awkward overlaps of capabilities between extensions and it is up to wallets to reconcile their capabilities, at enable time.