Re: [VOTE] PIP-404： Introduce per-ledger properties

+1 (binding) Thanks, Yunze On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 6:00 PM Lari Hotari wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > -Lari > > On 2025/02/11 06:37:59 Tao Jiuming wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I open PIP-404 to introduce per ledger properties, which will add a > > `properties` field to `LedgerInfo` to store extra pro

Re: [VOTE] PIP-404： Introduce per-ledger properties

+1 (binding) -Lari On 2025/02/11 06:37:59 Tao Jiuming wrote: > Hi all, > > I open PIP-404 to introduce per ledger properties, which will add a > `properties` field to `LedgerInfo` to store extra properties for every > `Ledger`. > > # Background knowledge > As we don't have a secondary index on

Re: [VOTE] PIP-404： Introduce per-ledger properties

Hi, Enrico Thanks for your feedback. 1. For property's key-value datatype, for maximum universality, it only supports String type. Just like `ManagedCursor#cursorProperties` and `ManagedLedger#propertiesMap`. 2. We can add/update/remove properties during the whole ledger's life time, all the chan

Re: [VOTE] PIP-404： Introduce per-ledger properties

Tao, I think that the proposal is valuable. We have to clarify which datatypes are supported both for the keys and for the values. Are keys and values only raw arrays of bytes? It would be better to have a way to detect the types, so that automatic tools, like CLIs and UIs can represent the value

[VOTE] PIP-404： Introduce per-ledger properties

Hi all, I open PIP-404 to introduce per ledger properties, which will add a `properties` field to `LedgerInfo` to store extra properties for every `Ledger`. # Background knowledge As we don't have a secondary index on the Bookkeeper, so we can't query entries by message metadata efficiently. The