Skip to content

remove load_dynamic_metadata#6467

Closed
zhiqiangxu wants to merge 2 commits into
anza-xyz:masterfrom
zhiqiangxu:rm_load_dynamic_metadata
Closed

remove load_dynamic_metadata#6467
zhiqiangxu wants to merge 2 commits into
anza-xyz:masterfrom
zhiqiangxu:rm_load_dynamic_metadata

Conversation

@zhiqiangxu
Copy link
Copy Markdown

The load_dynamic_metadata function is useless.

@tao-stones
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Thanks for checking it out. You are correct that load_dynamic_metadata currently does nothing, it is a placeholder for implementing dynamic transaction metadata - those requires loading accounts, for example. If we believe it strongly to remove placeholders, then pub trait DynamicMeta should also be removed.

@zhiqiangxu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Thanks for checking it out. You are correct that load_dynamic_metadata currently does nothing, it is a placeholder for implementing dynamic transaction metadata - those requires loading accounts, for example. If we believe it strongly to remove placeholders, then pub trait DynamicMeta should also be removed.

I guess it's no longer needed as it has been there for a long time.

@tao-stones
Copy link
Copy Markdown

tao-stones commented Jun 11, 2025

I guess it's no longer needed as it has been there for a long time.

dynamic part of metadata could include loaded ALT, nonce accounts etc; which are actively discussed if will be supported in next version of Transaction format. In that sense, it is not "no longer needed", rather "haven't been implemented".

With two options:

  1. leave it as-is till, perhaps, Transaction V1 is well defined.
  2. remove all things about pub trait DynamicMeta, can add it back when actual use cases rise.

Do you have other reasons other than "it's no used" for taking option 2?

@zhiqiangxu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

dynamic part of metadata could include loaded ALT, nonce accounts etc; which are actively discussed if will be supported in next version of Transaction format. In that sense, it is not "no longer needed", rather "haven't been implemented".

Could you share a link to the discussion? I'm very interested in further discussions. If infeasible here, you can also send to my email: 652732310@qq.com . Thanks!

Do you have other reasons other than "it's no used" for taking option 2?

I think option 1 is better since it's being actively discussed.

@tao-stones
Copy link
Copy Markdown

there is SIMD-0296, and various discussions on Discord channels.

@zhiqiangxu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

there is SIMD-0296, and various discussions on Discord channels.

Could you share the link for Discord channels?

@tao-stones
Copy link
Copy Markdown

there is SIMD-0296, and various discussions on Discord channels.

Could you share the link for Discord channels?

One here

@Armanidashh
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Merge

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the stale label Mar 12, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request was closed because it has been stale for 7 days with no activity.

@github-actions github-actions Bot closed this Mar 19, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants