-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Orch Docs Landing Page Clarity, Add transactional vs portfolio #1271
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Deploying documentation with
|
Latest commit: |
f1b6b5c
|
Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
Preview URL: | https://a018925e.documentation-7tp.pages.dev |
Branch Preview URL: | https://ms-update-orch-docs.documentation-7tp.pages.dev |
Cloudflare deployment logs are available here |
76d63d7
to
3d34659
Compare
@dtribble This is a draft but do you think this is a step in the right direction? Also, please share any specific comments. |
3d34659
to
1c480c3
Compare
1c480c3
to
6fa4caf
Compare
da3349e
to
c5ea9d1
Compare
c5ea9d1
to
ced1cac
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
comments marked correctness are critical
main/guides/orchestration/index.md
Outdated
Agoric’s Orchestration APIs simplify controlling accounts on remote chains, moving assets, and using capabilities on any chain the API reaches. | ||
Agoric's Orchestration capability allows developers to easily build cross-chain | ||
interactions into existing applications or to create novel cross-chain-focused | ||
products. | ||
|
||
<br/> | ||
<img src="./assets/chains.png" width="100%" /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This doesn't seem to be a screenshot or continuous-tone image. It's circles and arrows and such. Do we have an .svg version? How was it drawn? How do we maintain it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It was generated in free version of canva so we could not get the SVG.
This image has been here for a few months now - if you recall we had a slack discussion about this with Touseef.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah yes. now I remember.
Maybe it's worth a comment to say "drawn with canva which does not export SVG" so I don't trip over it again?
or maybe we can convert it... hm... I tried a couple quick tools; no luck.
Co-authored-by: Dan Connolly <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dan Connolly <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dan Connolly <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dan Connolly <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dan Connolly <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
good stuff
I leave it up to you to decide whether to wait for @Chris-Hibbert to weigh in. I expect we can tweak later if it comes to that.
I've drawn a similar distinction to the idea of transactional vs portfolio here, but I don't think this represents two kinds of contracts. For instance, FastUSDC has both kinds of interactions. The LP holders have a long-term position, while the traders never talk directly to the contract. Their funds are deposited in a seat, but there isn't a separate seat per transaction. I think of it more as a spectrum. or different types of behavior that a contract can support. |
@Chris-Hibbert I am adding the following comment in the conclusion: Note that rather than a rigid dichotomy, many contracts exist on a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@amessbee Is there any thread/issue where this improvement is pre-discussed? Just wanted to review changes with the context
Ref: #1272
Here are pages of interest: