Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Saw a few casts grumbling about the next iteration of frames Clearing up misconceptions: 1. We circulated earlier versions of the public draft with a dozen or teams who are actively building frames. 2. Existing frames will continue to work as is. If people continue to build them and they have meaningful usage, we will support them. 3. Our goal with the changes is to give developers *more* surface area to build better experiences and *more* reliability for one shot actions like transactions (still clunky today). 4. Frames are just links. So other clients can choose to adopt or not and they will start work. 5. Frames are Farcaster primitives not just Warpcast because they contain social context, e.g. a user’s FID
7 replies
162 recasts
446 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Coda: if you want to provide feedback, just cast and tag me. Or send a DC. Posting anonymously isn’t particularly actionable.
3 replies
1 recast
150 reactions
nicholas 🧨
@nicholas
idk what people are grumbling about but i’m hyped for FC MiniApps
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
agusti 🐘
@bleu.eth
> 2. Existing frames will continue to work as is. If people continue to build them and they have meaningful usage, we will support them. This is all we wanted to hear imho, I think the -we'll decide if sunsetting- them on 6 months is just not a great prospect for anyone building on it. Protocols shouldn't be sunsetted. Frames v2 looks cool and actually has many interesting ideas (hooks on ui for specific composer actions) -Using usage metrics to decide in the future makes sense, but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy to announce a sunset of a featureset/protocol like v1, like few people is incentivized to now build on it if they think its going away. I was thinking about making an interactive frames tutorial at frame.st but prob not worth it rn
1 reply
1 recast
9 reactions
Fucory
@fucory
Frames need to become fully composable credibly neutral microfrontends
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mirko 🔵🟡 .⌐◨-◨
@netnose
I’d love to see some support for client side rendering websites. Frames uses heavily POST calls that sometimes are not necessary. I’m building on IPFS and the feature set is very small it that case.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
helladj™
@helladj.eth
Frames 98’
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
base
@basewtf
I love frames, looking forward to seeing this draft.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
