Revamp contract deployment about starknet-rs

[fracek]

I agree with this, I was going to suggest a trait for account deployers but I see you already defined it.

[xJonathanLEI]

Damn. I just wanted to jot some notes on the revamp plan but ended up writing an essay lol.

Spamming your inboxes since you guys contributed a lot to this library: @milancermak @fracek haha. Just FYI, can totally ignore, but feedbacks are welcome!

[martriay]

great initiative! not sure what kind of light can I shed but the address it's expected to be 0x041a78e741e5af2fec34b695679bc6891742439f7afb8484ecd7766661ad02bf when deployed from 0 with salt 0.

the verified code can be found on the above link, with the same interface as in the UDC Proposal. further documentation on usage, caveats, and design rationale is on the way.

[xJonathanLEI]

@martriay Thanks! I was mainly wondering if the interface and address calculation behavior (mainly salt) will change cuz I will be hard-coding it inside the library, along with the address of latest UDC, so it might silently break users at runtime if the interface changes.

But hey, StarkNet itself still makes breaking changes all the time. Maybe at this point it doesn't matter lol. Or maybe a better approach is simply to not ship with an address.

[martriay]

the address is expected to stay, although any future changes to the code will result in a different one. interface changes are even less likely, but it will depend on the ecosystem.
what we do in nile is to take an UDC address parameter with a default value for the standard one. this also allows users to use their own deployer contracts even if it's not the UDC

[xJonathanLEI]

Yeah I figure I wasn't thinking straight and thought it might break people if the default address changes lol. It's actually the opposite: it breaks if users supply their own address and the UDC interface changes. All good now. Thanks!