📅 Original date posted:2022-01-24
📝 Original message:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 01:54:49PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>Christian Decker <decker.christian at gmail.com> writes:
>>William Casarin <jb55 at jb55.com> writes:
>>> I think the end goal of an RPC bolt [blip] would be super powerful,
>>> so that lnsocket could talk to any lightning node, but that could be
>>> further down the line. Choosing the right data format seemed like an
>>> important step in that direction. Would love to hear your thoughts
>>> on this!
>>
>> I agree. Exchanging the transport layer underneath grpc doesn't change
>> semantics, but does unlock a number of potential use-cases. I think
>> either the JSON-RPC or grpc can serve as a basis for a common RPC
>> definition that can have any number of bindings, since we generate
>> conversion code to/from JSON-RPC and grpc we can transparently map them
>> back and forth.
>
>Yeah, I don't think we'll end up with a control standard. But I've been
>pleasantly surprised before: certainly a common subset would be nice!
I ended up just using json+commando for my prototype[1]. I'm not going
to overengineer anything yet. If there's a way write plugins for the
other implementations I could start hacking away at a common control
subset, since I do eventually want an iOS app that controls all node
implementations. I will try to get something working across multiple
implementations before writing up a spec.
Cheers,
Will
[1] http://git.jb55.com/lnsocket/file/rpc.c.html
William Casarin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1d7…93exj
2023-06-09 13:05:04
in reply to nevent1q…wnzu
Author Public Key
npub1d7e068ud72v0au6xf53qvek44eccfhlgnhzuclf6za6hnxrvx89sc93exjPublished at
2023-06-09 13:05:04Event JSON
{
"id": "96bc0dfc19f738afdcf6594ec42ae37b205b8b02b0ad44518d005a7ef350deda",
"pubkey": "6fb2fd1f8df298fef3464d220666d5ae7184dfe89dc5cc7d3a177579986c31cb",
"created_at": 1686315904,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"bbafbc4c376e50a2d8622ab6c7d7bb850f33774ae8c88d4310ce7d7d80722085",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"214242b3619bd9f84fb4cabc1763eb7243be7dd94f5b34c87ebdfc92157b3dd2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-01-24\n📝 Original message:\nOn Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 01:54:49PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:\n\u003eChristian Decker \u003cdecker.christian at gmail.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e\u003eWilliam Casarin \u003cjb55 at jb55.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I think the end goal of an RPC bolt [blip] would be super powerful,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e so that lnsocket could talk to any lightning node, but that could be\n\u003e\u003e\u003e further down the line. Choosing the right data format seemed like an\n\u003e\u003e\u003e important step in that direction. Would love to hear your thoughts\n\u003e\u003e\u003e on this!\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I agree. Exchanging the transport layer underneath grpc doesn't change\n\u003e\u003e semantics, but does unlock a number of potential use-cases. I think\n\u003e\u003e either the JSON-RPC or grpc can serve as a basis for a common RPC\n\u003e\u003e definition that can have any number of bindings, since we generate\n\u003e\u003e conversion code to/from JSON-RPC and grpc we can transparently map them\n\u003e\u003e back and forth.\n\u003e\n\u003eYeah, I don't think we'll end up with a control standard. But I've been\n\u003epleasantly surprised before: certainly a common subset would be nice!\n\nI ended up just using json+commando for my prototype[1]. I'm not going\nto overengineer anything yet. If there's a way write plugins for the\nother implementations I could start hacking away at a common control\nsubset, since I do eventually want an iOS app that controls all node\nimplementations. I will try to get something working across multiple\nimplementations before writing up a spec.\n\nCheers,\nWill\n\n[1] http://git.jb55.com/lnsocket/file/rpc.c.html",
"sig": "fb41a07532894c431111f9ecf74e76fb4cf0c7eb2270865587d0502d602d5d2ef16cbfa0cd6bc7f4f5433bedb5e5c811b8d671095bc0a7bd6920d69d6fad1cdb"
}