bitcoinj-server: Replace PeerGroup with WalletAppKit? about consensusj HOT 3 CLOSED

I think both PeerGroup and WalletAppKit are potentially useful as DI components. So let's not replace the PeerGroup beans. However, I do think that the bitcoinj-daemon should probably use WalletAppKit.

If you want to just make changes in cj-nmc-daemon first -- and then we can migrate them later to the Bitcoin daemon, that would be fine with me.

from consensusj.

Hmm, so if we leave the PeerGroup beans intact in bitcoinj-server, what's your preference for how we make bitcoinj-daemon use a WalletAppKit instead? Will we just end up with a PeerGroup bean that's in the code as a dependency but unused? (That seems suboptimal.) Is there a better way?

from consensusj.

I think it's fine to add WalletAppKit to bitcoinj-server. It's ok to have a PeerGroup bean in that module that's unused. Every module will have classes that won't be used by all/most applications. In general, I've probably over-modularized already -- my main focus for modules was to minimize transitive dependencies on other libraries. The existing modules are quite small and a few unused classes won't make them too big.

Does this make sense?

from consensusj.