Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Hyperledger Explorer Proposal


Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@...>
 

Agreed on driving towards a common API. Yes, there could be different plugins at the UI for chaincode vs transaction families, but I think that other aspects might be shared... eg throughput rate, finalization timeframe, number of blocks, block metadata inspector, etc.
 
Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology
IBM Cloud, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/
phone: +1 508 667 0402
 
 

----- Original message -----
From: "Middleton, Dan" <dan.middleton@...>
To: Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...>, Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: "hyperledger-tsc@..." <hyperledger-tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Hyperledger Explorer Proposal
Date: Fri, Jul 15, 2016 9:36 AM
 

Yes, that makes sense.  There are probably some core common elements to be queried like /block/<id> and /transaction/<id>.  Beyond elements like that, as the architectures differ so too would a UI.  For example, Transaction Families and Chaincode will probably suggest different interactions if not just different presentation logic.

 

Sheehan had also suggested during the call to bring this up in the protocol WG.  We could probably define a common subset of REST URIs like those above.

 

--dan

 

From: Brian Behlendorf [mailto:bbehlendorf@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 16:11
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@...>; Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
Cc: hyperledger-tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Hyperledger Explorer Proposal

 

Yes to a "Hyperledger Blockchain Explorer" project, with three products under their scope (I don't know if that has to mean "three repositories" - seems like one repo per project is semantically cleaner), and with a general suggestion that these three efforts find ways to combine forces, or usefully differentiate if there is good reason to.  That is, there may still be a good reason for more than one UI, but having the same team involved in both will help ensure they remain separate for good reason, like a "lite" versus "power user/admin" kind of thing.  Ideally we can all converge on one, but I would prefer to have that be a consensus of the devs rather than a requirement for graduation from Incubation.

Brian

On 07/14/2016 09:53 AM, Christopher B Ferris wrote:

+1 

 

Could we start a project called "Hyperledger Blockchain Explorer" that started Incubation with three repos (DTCC, Intel, IBM contributions) with a goal of consolidating through incubation phase such that the goal for exiting Incubation to Active would be a single repository (or at least one release comprising of possibly a few integrated components each with their own repo)?

 

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology
IBM Cloud, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/
phone: +1 508 667 0402

 

 

----- Original message -----
From: "Middleton, Dan via hyperledger-tsc" <hyperledger-tsc@...>
Sent by: hyperledger-tsc-bounces@...
To: Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...>, "hyperledger-tsc@..." <hyperledger-tsc@...>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Hyperledger Explorer Proposal
Date: Thu, Jul 14, 2016 12:39 PM
 

Per our discussion in the TSC meeting today…

Sawtooth validators expose rest endpoints that an explorer like this one could consume.

Here’s the web api:

http://intelledger.github.io/sawtooth_developers_guide/web_api/index.html

 

We have some open discussion for the next meeting on how we want to approach a unified Hyperledger explorer vs. ledger-specific explorers.  This could be an interesting first case for showing ledger interaction among the Hyperledger family of blockchains.

 

Regards,

Dan

 

 

From: hyperledger-tsc-bounces@... [mailto:hyperledger-tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Brian Behlendorf via hyperledger-tsc
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 06:09
To: hyperledger-tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Hyperledger Explorer Proposal

 


I like this.  It also sounds like there may be a similar offering from IBM, detaching their Bluemix-based console from Bluemix and making it stand-alone.  Can I suggest that both efforts be combined into a new project, in a repository separate from the main Fabric repository (and thus able to set their own commiter base, release schedule, etc) combining the best of both?  That would help create a diverse developer community from the start, as well.

Brian

On 07/13/2016 02:04 PM, Konrad Pabjan via hyperledger-tsc wrote:

Hi everyone,

I have submitted a Hyperledger Improvement proposal to TSC, to be discussed in the meeting tomorrow. The proposal is currently on the Wiki page. https://github.com/hyperledger/hyperledger/wiki/Proposals Would love any feedback. I have a quick demo on my github that you can check out. https://github.com/konradpabjan/fabric/tree/master/peer/Explorer (The video is really fast, had to get in under 25Mb)

Thank You,
Konrad Pabjan





_______________________________________________

hyperledger-tsc mailing list





--

Brian Behlendorf

Executive Director at the Hyperledger Project

Twitter: @brianbehlendorf

_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc

 

 




--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director at the Hyperledger Project
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
 

Join toc@lists.hyperledger.org to automatically receive all group messages.