📅 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
Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tj…jtl6r
2023-06-07 02:13:47
in reply to nevent1q…cm5r
Author Public Key
npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rPublished at
2023-06-07 02:13:47Event JSON
{
"id": "fb35f6e40fd553275ea403d60eb03258f33086adfcce6497707dade73071e26c",
"pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6",
"created_at": 1686104027,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fe8ae56772ad6135ef8f3cc5e223de1011f21616a51d5302085d2b9ebf339345",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6a571614eed2cc7e674758c183e4896af8d2a432f6c14f82060e2cd82d0ba8cb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cd7fc091d5673974c36bf2b5c6e8b4a5079d6821b95f6719fd48571aeb25b785"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-08-10\n🗒️ 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.\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:14:49PM +0200, Matt Corallo wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:36 +0000, John Smith wrote:\n\u003e \u003e All,\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e In the current mainline client everything is lugged into one\n\u003e \u003e executable (with an optional daemon-only one). I think this is a bad\n\u003e \u003e idea for various reasons, and would propose something like:\n\u003e \u003e * bitcoind: bitcoin daemon\n\u003e \u003e * bitcoin(-qt): bitcoin GUI executable\n\u003e \u003e * bitcoincl: bitcoin RPC command line\n\u003e \u003e By default, all three would be built. In non-GUI mode, only bitcoind\n\u003e \u003e and bitcoincl are built (the names are obviously open for\n\u003e \u003e discussion). \n\u003e \n\u003e All this said, I totally agree with the more clear split of the source\n\u003e into separate library-ish components (I'm working on part of that now).\n\u003e However, I don't like the idea of splitting into more executables. \n\nI do agree about splitting off bitcoincl - it's kinda confusing now how\nthe client behaves as a rpc daemon or UI when no RPC command-line\nparameters are present, and as a command-line client otherwise.\n\nI am less sure UI and RPC should be split (though being able to select\nboth independently from eachother at compile time would be nice). I\noften run the UI and switch to RPC calls to inspect some details.\nNot sure how common this usage pattern is, though.\n\n\u003e If you are suggesting this so that bitcoin-qt can be distributed being\n\u003e built off of bitcoind, I would say go ahead and pull-request bitcoin-qt.\n\u003e I'm of the opinion that it should be merged whether we have autotools or\n\u003e not (we already have 5 makefiles, whats a few more options in those?)\n\u003e and jgarzik seemed to indicate that he would agree (Gavin?, sipa?\n\u003e tcatm?).\n\nThe problem is that bitcoin-qt is built using qmake, and the rest using\nmakefiles... so it's more than just adding an additional makefile.\n\nThat said, it seems bitcoin-qt is mature enough to replace wxbitcoin\nto me, and would definitely like to see it in mainline. How streamlined\nis the process of building bitcoin-qt on windows and osx? Maybe we can\nswitch everything to qmake (for now, as long as no maintained autotools \nis present)?\n\n-- \nPieter",
"sig": "972c2dd2b99e6168401aa2b11c40790eaf57b8088680579cf99b8a0845654f21f36436d952524e1eec712533dcb58c2028707e051e5ffa82b74230a7f84bf383"
}