Poc microcrate account #972
Conversation
|
I like it that there are no |
| //! By constraining the wrapper to be independent of internal zingolib functionality | ||
| //! we expose a shareable component, and refine the definition of zingolib. | ||
|
|
||
| /// The a view-only abstraction that provides a management interface for |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"The a view-only" is a typo? also comment seems to just ...end. I am ok to chalk that up to the TODO if you want
| /// TODO: Explain more about our Account abstraction. | ||
| pub struct ZingoAccount( | ||
| pub zip32::AccountId, | ||
| pub zcash_keys::keys::UnifiedFullViewingKey, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I dont think we should make fields pub unless there is a really good reason? is there one?
the id and ufvk methods are private though which is surprising. Have you looked at how this Account trait is used in LRZ?
|
I think we should probably have a crate for many "primitive" wallet objects like account. I think one crate for just this one struct will end up with a silly amount of crates. Or we just have the struct in zingolib. |
This is an experiment. I don't have a great idea for what the tradeoffs might be, but all other things being equal, I think more encapsulated is better.