Hi Marvin, Sorry for not responding sooner. We have a need for something like this in the ConsensusJ [0] project (formerly called bitcoinj-addons) and were thinking about making a proposal similar to yours. You can see some of the discussion on Issue #14 [1] and Issue #25 [2]. We've dabbled with Litecoin, Namecoin, and a couple of other chains - -and there's some significant Namecoin work that JeremyRand wants to merge. JeremyRand has been using and brought to my attention the libdohj [3] (pronounced "lib doge" -- like the coin) which addresses some of these issues.
The ideal solution IMO would be for bitcoinj to split of some of these foundational classes into a separate jar (smaller and with fewer dependencies than bitcoinj-core) that can be used by bitcoinj and other chains. I haven't had much time lately to look at the latest alternatives, but would love to see a great, standard, open source solution for some common code. -- Sean [0] https://github.com/ConsensusJ/consensusj [1] https://github.com/ConsensusJ/consensusj/issues/14 [2] https://github.com/ConsensusJ/consensusj/issues/25 [3] https://github.com/dogecoin/libdohj On 12/11/17 12:00 PM, Marvin wrote: > I've started to setup a repo for this > idea: https://github.com/marvin-we/crypto-core > > Am Sonntag, 3. Dezember 2017 10:44:41 UTC+1 schrieb Marvin: > > Hello together, > > I initially created the following ticket: > https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/issues/1486 > <https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/issues/1486> And was asked > to publish this idea on the mailing list - So I hope this group is > the right place :) > > _____________________ > > Original Ticket: > > Hello together and a big thanks for providing this library. > > I have the follownig "feature" request: > > I develop a Java-Library for the > [Steem-Blockchain](https://github.com/steemit/steem/ > <https://github.com/steemit/steem/>) called > [SteemJ](https://github.com/marvin-we/steem-java-api-wrapper > <https://github.com/marvin-we/steem-java-api-wrapper>) and I try > to reuse as much parts of bitcoinJ as possible - Why? Because this > project is well documented, the code quality is really great and > the lib itself is bulletproof. > > A lot of your implementations (e.g. the ECKey object or the Utils > class) provide functionallities required in nearly all Blockchain > libs out there. Due to that a lib developer has three options: > > 1. Implement something on his/her own (e.g. IOTA) > 2. Use the whole bitcoinJ project (e.g. SteemJ) > 3. Copy your code (e.g. EtheriumJ) > > I guess number one can be pretty time consuming as it will require > a lot of time until the developer gained the knowledge that you > already have and will also not reach the code quality you offer. > > Number two is what I am currently doing. This solution has one > disadvantage: I need to add the whole BitcoinJ library while only > using some specific classes. > > Number three solves this problem, but you manually need to take > care of updates and merge those changes. > > So I was wondering if it would be possible to put classes that are > not bitcoin specific into a separate package? > > _____________________ > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "bitcoinj" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bitcoinj" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
