Ethereum: Which design approach is better? Comparison of smart contract architecture
As a newcomer to web development and blockchain technology in the world, choosing the right approach for the development of your smart contracts can be huge. Two popular approaches that have been attracted to considerable attention in recent years are the design -controlled (ed.) Design and MP design (message transfer). In this article, we will test both approaches that highlight your strengths and weaknesses to make a well -skillful decision.
Event -Controlled (ED) Design: Decentralized approach
The event -controlled approach is a decentralized, events -controlled architecture based on developing events through intelligent contracts. Events are activated when some circumstances are met, eg. B. A user who processes an action or transaction.
Advantages:
* Decentralization
: ED approach provides a more decentralized structure by which all nodes (consensus salgorithms) can agree on blockchain status.
* Elasticity : Events can be caused by a variety of circumstances that facilitate the creation of complex logic and interaction between the contracts.
* Scalability : Using multiple nodes, the ED approach can achieve greater scalability than conventional centralized architecture.
Disadvantages:
* Complexity : ED approach requires a deeper understanding of events controlled by programming concepts that can make it difficult for young developers.
* Challenge Discugation : Devilding of events can be difficult due to decentralized architecture.
Message Delivery (MP) Design: Central Approach
The Embassy is the main approach based on the creation and distribution of messages between contracts. Messages are sent from one contract to another for simpler intelligent implementation of sophisticated logic.
Advantages:
* Simplicity : MP approach makes new developers easier to implement and understand architecture.
* Simple debugging
: The centralized nature of the design simplifies the debugging due to clear news flow.
* Scalability : While the MP design can still achieve significant scalability improvements, although the MP design may achieve less.
Disadvantages:
* Centralization : MP approach is based on the central authority (contract owner), which can lead to centralized control and reduced decentralization.
* Limited Flexibility : Centralized architecture may not be so easy to deal with complex interactions between contracts as ED design.
Which design approach is better?
After all, choosing a design approach depends on your specific requirements and goals. If you create a decentralized application that requires high scalability and flexibility, a better choice may be the design of the event (ED). If, on the other hand, you prefer easier implementation with easier debugging and want to sacrifice decentralization for increased scalability, the design (MP) could be a way.
Example of Solidity Code:
`SOLIDITY
Pragma Solidity ^0.8.0;
Agreement MyFactory {
// The event causes when the case is created
Event (address indexed instance);
// function to create a new myimpl case
Functioning () Public Return (Address) {
// Create a new myimpl case
Myimplinestance = New Myimpl ();
// Set an occasional address to an event -controlled contract
Case statements (address (instance));
Return instance.address;
}
}
`
`SOLIDITY
Pragma Solidity ^0.8.
Leave a Reply