We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
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
NodeType
I feel that we could turn this abstraction around and make the NodeType contain the necessary state for the respective node type.
This would make weird configs unrepresentable and avoid the Option<PeerId>
Option<PeerId>
Originally posted by @jmg-duarte in #666 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
aidan46
No branches or pull requests
I feel that we could turn this abstraction around and make the
NodeType
contain the necessary state for the respective node type.This would make weird configs unrepresentable and avoid the
Option<PeerId>
Originally posted by @jmg-duarte in #666 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: