You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
First, I propose that we get rid of any assumption of storage type, hashed or otherwise. Instead, we should leave only an abstract API for modifying the graph.
In order to adapt this more abstract model to the current working concrete graph types, we could lower the hash-based storage assumptions to HashGraphProtocol:
cc @bwetherfield.
Currently,
GraphProtocol
requires a hash-based storage of nodes and edges:First, I propose that we get rid of any assumption of storage type, hashed or otherwise. Instead, we should leave only an abstract API for modifying the graph.
In order to adapt this more abstract model to the current working concrete graph types, we could lower the hash-based storage assumptions to
HashGraphProtocol
:We can move the default implementations for the current
GraphProtocol
onto theHashGraphProtocol
.We may need to do a little juggling to make all of the downstream protocols and types work, but hopefully very little.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: