Investigate: Rename SubstrateKitchensinkConfig to something more generic

[haerdib]

From encointer/encointer-node#328 (comment):

But it seems to be generic enough such that it works for us too. So it could be something like DefaultAssetRuntimeConfig.

I agree with that line of thought. SubstratKitchensinkConfig is correct. But maybe a little too confining.

[echevrier]

According to Substrate, the node example runtime is NOTHING production-like, and should not be used, nor inspired from ;) That's why they've renamed the node-runtime to node-kitchensink-runtime.
Changing the name of our configuration is then deceptively reassuring, but I can understand, that for live nodes, referring to a Kitchensink is not so nice.

We have another config that is compatible with a polkadot node: PolkadotConfig . If we rename SubstratKitchensinkConfig without reference to Substrate, we should also rename PolkadotConfig.

A little too confining? I'm not sure where to put the emphasis. For the moment the differences between the configs are the methods of payment or the nodes that use them. If we don't want to make any reference to node-kitchensink-runtime, I'd like to remain as neutral as possible. So maybe DefaultAssetRuntimeConfig instead of SubstratKitchensinkConfig and DefaultRuntimeConfig instead of PolkadotConfig?

Other possibilities

• DefaultSubstrateAssetRuntimeConfig and DefaultPolkadotRuntimeConfig?
• SubstrateAssetRuntimeConfig and PoladotRuntimeConfig?

@haerdib , @clangenb What do you think?

[clangenb]

Yes, I can understand the rationale why they renamed it into the kitchensink runtime. However, if the config works for polkadot and kusama, I think it shouldn't have the kitchensink name in it. I can agree with your second set of suggestions, but would like to add some more variants:

• AssetRuntimeConfig, PolkadotConfig

I don't have a strong tendency towards your or mine suggestions.

[haerdib]

Maybe I'm a little behind here, but for me, the difference between Polkadot and Substrate is not clear in regard to the config. Both, Substrate and Polkadot nodes may have both types of Payments, and both, substrate-node-template (not kitchsink-runtime, as @echevrier noted should not be used as template), and polkadot nodes by default use plain tip.

Maybe I'm wrong here? But if not, I'd refrain from using Polkadot or Substrate in the naming, but instead focus on Asset and Plain or Default ?

Suggestions:

• AssetConfig, PlainConfig
• DefaultAssetConfig, DefaultConfig
• AssetRuntimeConfig, RuntimeConfig

[echevrier]

So let's go with DefaultAssetConfig and DefaultPlainConfig. Emphasis on Default and on Asset/Plain.

[clangenb]

I think asset and plain are a bit too mysterious. As a slight adjustment, I would suggest:

DefaultAssetPaymentConfig, DefaultNativePaymentConfig although I am not sure about the latter. :)

[haerdib]

I agree. Not sure about Native as well though.

How about: AssetPaymentConfig, DefaultPaymentConfig?

Because the plain tip is certainly default, while it is probably debatable if asset could be labelled as Default.

[clangenb]

Yes, I think this is OK, I can agree with your suggestions. My primary concern before was that PlainTip has been coined by subxt, and is not a term known to the general substrate/polkadot dev.

[echevrier]

AssetPaymentConfig, DefaultPaymentConfig sounds like payment configs. I would prefer AssetRuntimeConfig and DefaultRuntimeConfig if we can't use Plain.

[clangenb]

Sounds good to me!

[haerdib]

Yes, that makes sense 👍