Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <memwallet.info@gmail.com>) id 1Xu2rN-0005gQ-P3
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:28:05 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.175; envelope-from=memwallet.info@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ig0-f175.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Xu2rM-000653-TJ
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:28:05 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f175.google.com with SMTP id h15so8806363igd.14
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:27:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.142.201 with SMTP id t9mr32704908icu.60.1417109279641;
	Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.167.203 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:27:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKzHBKnFHnc5+b0kU9=a0iG3HCU=mwx71DbQPk53Y91aPhA7eA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mem Wallet <memwallet.info@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e84ca38944d0508da778f
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(memwallet.info[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Xu2rM-000653-TJ
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] bitcoind as a library
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:28:05 -0000

--90e6ba6e84ca38944d0508da778f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Two minor observations:

DecodeBase58Check is listed as inline, but isnt actually inlined in the
header.
This makes it both non-present in libbitcoin_common.a and unavailable
to other code that would use libbitcoin_common.a as a library. (bug?)

In general, the hierarchy of tools is poor/weak. for example base58.h could
be a fairly
independent low level math/string library, but it includes caddress, which
requires chainparams, and makes the whole dependency tree quite involved...


Is there an intention that the various internal libraries could/should
be strengthened and heirachicalized such that they would be suitable for
3rd party development of bitcoin related services and tools, or is that not
a goal, and some other project would have to fill such a role ?

--90e6ba6e84ca38944d0508da778f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><br></div>Two minor observations:<br><=
br>DecodeBase58Check is listed as inline, but isnt actually inlined in the =
header.<br></div>This makes it both non-present in libbitcoin_common.a and =
unavailable<br>to other code that would use libbitcoin_common.a as a librar=
y. (bug?)<br><br></div>In general, the hierarchy of tools is poor/weak. for=
 example base58.h could be a fairly<br>independent low level math/string li=
brary, but it includes caddress, which <br>requires chainparams, and makes =
the whole dependency tree quite involved...<br><br><br></div><div>Is there =
an intention that the various internal libraries could/should<br>be strengt=
hened and heirachicalized such that they would be suitable for<br></div><di=
v>3rd party development of bitcoin related services and tools, or is that n=
ot<br>a goal, and some other project would have to fill such a role ?<br></=
div><br><br></div>

--90e6ba6e84ca38944d0508da778f--