feat: websockets rpc provider #125
Conversation
This reverts commit 5125e7a.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not very happy with these changes. I feel a change such as this should be discussed.
It removes features, and doesn't have any reviews. I fear we are passing too many uncontrolled changes, without enough eyes or agreement.
In particular, given the requirements of the watch tower, a Http RPC provider is good. It's the responsibility of the one using it, to decide on how to solve RPC issues, maybe they want to use a local node which doesn't have load balancing and don't expose Websockets.
If you want Websockets, you can recommend it in the README when you talk about config, but not force people.
Besides kills the authentication logic, and makes the code less generic as, before we were getting the provider from a method, and now we instanciate an specific provider.
Description
This PR changes to use a websockets RPC provider
Changes
How to test