Skip to content

Self validating structured data and removal of transaction managers #1

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
dirvine merged 11 commits into from
Jun 22, 2015
Merged

Self validating structured data and removal of transaction managers #1

dirvine merged 11 commits into from
Jun 22, 2015

Conversation

@dirvine
Copy link
Member

@dirvine dirvine commented Jun 13, 2015

Please feel free to comment on initial proposal. An issue will be created to discuss this more widely in terms of design and improvements.

@dirvine
Copy link
Member Author

dirvine commented Jun 13, 2015

Be good if @chandraprakash or @qi.ma could comment and help with this one. Be good to get it in shape and then have some discussions and debates if it makes merge and then has an issue assigned for all to chime in.

@dirvine
formatting and multi owner types
9dc6d4b 
To handle shares, safecoin type data etc. Allows encrypted data to be decrypted by all holding encrypt key (for read only shares for example) and multiple read/write owners who must agree on any change for those types. Allows upper layers to decide on n+m sharing (contracts, currency) or any of type sharing (for shared private data for instance). Some small note for sentinel here as it reduces sentinel lookups for keys as they are included no in type. This further reduces network load.
@dirvine
Copy link
Member Author

dirvine commented Jun 19, 2015

Paging @s-brian as Shepherd (make sure PR is in order to get pushed and proposed). Step after this is to assign an issue number and begin any discussions

@dirvine dirvine changed the title Looking for initial comment on RFC Self validating structured data and removal of transaction managers Jun 20, 2015
dirvine added 2 commits June 20, 2015 16:18
@dirvine
Make it clear there are two sub-types of StructuredData
065571e 
Also add more information on changes to libraries. This may have the be detailed with a separate section for each library.
@dirvine
typo
421e245
@dirvine dirvine assigned ghost Jun 20, 2015
@dirvine dirvine added help wanted RFC-Proposal RFC Proposal - used for tracking through process on Project board. NOT an "issue" as such. labels Jun 20, 2015
ustulation
ustulation reviewed Jun 22, 2015
View reviewed changes
proposed/0000-Remove-Transaction-Managers.md Outdated
Copy link
Contributor

@ustulation ustulation Jun 22, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

64 bits i think (= 8 bytes)

dirvine added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 22, 2015
@dirvine
Merge pull request #1 from dirvine/master
ce6da03 
Self validating structured data and removal of transaction managers
@dirvine dirvine merged commit ce6da03 into maidsafe:master Jun 22, 2015
@mmoadeli
Copy link

mmoadeli commented Jun 22, 2015

Below are two minor issues

1- 'Feature Name: Remove Transaction Managers from network and have network only recognise 2 Structured data sub-types'
The first part of the feature name 'Remove Transaction Managers from network' is only an outcome of the second part 'network only recognise 2 Structured data sub-types'. and also the first part of the feature name is not mentioned anywhere in text. I would put the first part of the feature name, 'Remove Transaction Managers from network' as an Expected outcome, not in title.

2- In 'New Protocols' , the first sentence is not parse-able by my English level.

@dirvine
Copy link
Member Author

dirvine commented Jun 22, 2015

Thanks @mmoadeli I will make those changes

@dirvine
Copy link
Member Author

dirvine commented Jun 22, 2015

Changes applied

@dirvine dirvine assigned dirvine and unassigned ghost Jun 22, 2015
@ghost ghost mentioned this pull request Sep 5, 2015
Closed
maqi referenced this pull request in maqi/rfcs Sep 22, 2015
@Fraser999
Merge pull request #1 from maqi/MPID_messaging
d73bc02 
Mpid messaging
ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2015
Merge pull request #1 from benjaminbollen/address_relocation
c7799c7 
Initial corrections
dirvine added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 2, 2015
@dirvine
Merge pull request #1 from Fraser999/dirvine_safecoin
c2592ec 
Updates.
Fraser999 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 25, 2016
@hitman401
Merge pull request #1 from rossmuir/patch-1
da03424 
Minor content updates
rossmuir pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 9, 2016
@maqi
Merge pull request #1 from rossmuir/patch-6
51015a3 
Minor content updates
rossmuir pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 10, 2016
Merge pull request #1 from maidsafe/master
4216efd 
Rebase fork
Viv-Rajkumar pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 29, 2016
@ustulation
Merge pull request #1 from Fraser999/appendable-data
5cff84c 
Fixed typos.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

@dirvine dirvine

Labels

help wanted RFC-Proposal RFC Proposal - used for tracking through process on Project board. NOT an "issue" as such.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@dirvine @mmoadeli @ustulation