feat: allow custom registrar

[dozyio]

Description

Allow the registrar to be overridden with a custom implementation e.g. for adding protocol middleware

Notes & open questions

Change checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation if necessary (this includes comments as well)
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works

[wemeetagain]

I suppose this should be in an else block on L143?

[dozyio]

Initially it was an if/else but found it useful to have the default implementation initialised so that it can be passed to a custom registrar. Maybe the initialisation of the default could be handled in the custom one instead?

https://github.com/dozyio/js-libp2p-middleware-registrar/blob/092687470ccd768da81d9d2044ce8ae37ce5715b/src/middleware-registry.ts#L101

[dozyio]

updated to wrap it in a if else

[SgtPooki]

Allow the registrar to be overridden with a custom implementation e.g. for adding protocol middleware

Do you have an example of how you intend this to be used? Does this just make js-libp2p more customize-able without needing changes to the repo?

[dozyio]

Allow the registrar to be overridden with a custom implementation e.g. for adding protocol middleware

Do you have an example of how you intend this to be used? Does this just make js-libp2p more customize-able without needing changes to the repo?

Yes - examples here
https://github.com/dozyio/js-libp2p-middleware-registrar - adds a middleware registrar
https://github.com/dozyio/js-libp2p-middleware-evm - adds EVM auth middleware via the middleware-registrar
https://github.com/dozyio/evm-frontend-example - nextjs app using EVM middleware to wrap libp2p protocols - bit of a pain to setup at present - will add some docs later

Maybe the middleware registrar could be included in js-libp2p instead but happy for it to live outside of the tree for now

[p-shahi]

Hey @dozyio - we need to revisit this. This PR introduces two registrars and because that's not the most ergnomic solution, we should reconsider how to do this. Can you create an issue (if not @achingbrain can too) and we can prototype in the issue before implementing?