Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-08-10 🗒️ Summary of this message: Proposal to ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-08-10
🗒️ Summary of this message: Proposal to split Bitcoin client into separate executables for daemon, GUI, and RPC command line. Splitting UI and RPC is debated.
📝 Original message:On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:14:49PM +0200, Matt Corallo wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:36 +0000, John Smith wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > In the current mainline client everything is lugged into one
> > executable (with an optional daemon-only one). I think this is a bad
> > idea for various reasons, and would propose something like:
> > * bitcoind: bitcoin daemon
> > * bitcoin(-qt): bitcoin GUI executable
> > * bitcoincl: bitcoin RPC command line
> > By default, all three would be built. In non-GUI mode, only bitcoind
> > and bitcoincl are built (the names are obviously open for
> > discussion).
>
> All this said, I totally agree with the more clear split of the source
> into separate library-ish components (I'm working on part of that now).
> However, I don't like the idea of splitting into more executables.
I do agree about splitting off bitcoincl - it's kinda confusing now how
the client behaves as a rpc daemon or UI when no RPC command-line
parameters are present, and as a command-line client otherwise.
I am less sure UI and RPC should be split (though being able to select
both independently from eachother at compile time would be nice). I
often run the UI and switch to RPC calls to inspect some details.
Not sure how common this usage pattern is, though.
> If you are suggesting this so that bitcoin-qt can be distributed being
> built off of bitcoind, I would say go ahead and pull-request bitcoin-qt.
> I'm of the opinion that it should be merged whether we have autotools or
> not (we already have 5 makefiles, whats a few more options in those?)
> and jgarzik seemed to indicate that he would agree (Gavin?, sipa?
> tcatm?).
The problem is that bitcoin-qt is built using qmake, and the rest using
makefiles... so it's more than just adding an additional makefile.
That said, it seems bitcoin-qt is mature enough to replace wxbitcoin
to me, and would definitely like to see it in mainline. How streamlined
is the process of building bitcoin-qt on windows and osx? Maybe we can
switch everything to qmake (for now, as long as no maintained autotools
is present)?
--
Pieter
🗒️ Summary of this message: Proposal to split Bitcoin client into separate executables for daemon, GUI, and RPC command line. Splitting UI and RPC is debated.
📝 Original message:On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:14:49PM +0200, Matt Corallo wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:36 +0000, John Smith wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > In the current mainline client everything is lugged into one
> > executable (with an optional daemon-only one). I think this is a bad
> > idea for various reasons, and would propose something like:
> > * bitcoind: bitcoin daemon
> > * bitcoin(-qt): bitcoin GUI executable
> > * bitcoincl: bitcoin RPC command line
> > By default, all three would be built. In non-GUI mode, only bitcoind
> > and bitcoincl are built (the names are obviously open for
> > discussion).
>
> All this said, I totally agree with the more clear split of the source
> into separate library-ish components (I'm working on part of that now).
> However, I don't like the idea of splitting into more executables.
I do agree about splitting off bitcoincl - it's kinda confusing now how
the client behaves as a rpc daemon or UI when no RPC command-line
parameters are present, and as a command-line client otherwise.
I am less sure UI and RPC should be split (though being able to select
both independently from eachother at compile time would be nice). I
often run the UI and switch to RPC calls to inspect some details.
Not sure how common this usage pattern is, though.
> If you are suggesting this so that bitcoin-qt can be distributed being
> built off of bitcoind, I would say go ahead and pull-request bitcoin-qt.
> I'm of the opinion that it should be merged whether we have autotools or
> not (we already have 5 makefiles, whats a few more options in those?)
> and jgarzik seemed to indicate that he would agree (Gavin?, sipa?
> tcatm?).
The problem is that bitcoin-qt is built using qmake, and the rest using
makefiles... so it's more than just adding an additional makefile.
That said, it seems bitcoin-qt is mature enough to replace wxbitcoin
to me, and would definitely like to see it in mainline. How streamlined
is the process of building bitcoin-qt on windows and osx? Maybe we can
switch everything to qmake (for now, as long as no maintained autotools
is present)?
--
Pieter