public class Cash
extends OnLedgerAsset
A cash transaction may split and merge money represented by a set of (issuer, depositRef) pairs, across multiple input and output states. Imagine a Bitcoin transaction but in which all UTXOs had a colour (a blend of issuer+depositRef) and you couldn't merge outputs of two colours together, but you COULD put them in the same transaction.
The goal of this design is to ensure that money can be withdrawn from the ledger easily: if you receive some money via this contract, you always know where to go in order to extract it from the R3 ledger, no matter how many hands it has passed through in the intervening time.
At the same time, other contracts that just want money and don't care much who is currently holding it in their vaults can ignore the issuer/depositRefs and just examine the amount fields.
Modifier and Type | Class and Description |
---|---|
static class |
Cash.Companion |
static class |
Cash.State
A state representing a cash claim against some party.
|
Modifier and Type | Field and Description |
---|---|
static Cash.Companion |
Companion |
static java.lang.String |
PROGRAM_ID |
Constructor and Description |
---|
Cash()
A cash transaction may split and merge money represented by a set of (issuer, depositRef) pairs, across multiple
input and output states. Imagine a Bitcoin transaction but in which all UTXOs had a colour
(a blend of issuer+depositRef) and you couldn't merge outputs of two colours together, but you COULD put them in
the same transaction.
|
Modifier and Type | Method and Description |
---|---|
TransactionState<net.corda.finance.contracts.asset.Cash.State> |
deriveState(TransactionState<net.corda.finance.contracts.asset.Cash.State> txState,
Amount<net.corda.core.contracts.Issued> amount,
AbstractParty owner)
Derive a new transaction state based on the given example, with amount and owner modified. This allows concrete
implementations to have fields in their state which we don't know about here, and we simply leave them untouched
when sending out "change" from spending/exiting.
|
java.util.List<net.corda.core.contracts.CommandWithParties> |
extractCommands(java.util.Collection<? extends net.corda.core.contracts.CommandWithParties<? extends net.corda.core.contracts.CommandData>> commands) |
Commands.Exit |
generateExitCommand(Amount<net.corda.core.contracts.Issued> amount) |
java.util.Set<java.security.PublicKey> |
generateIssue(TransactionBuilder tx,
Issued<java.util.Currency> tokenDef,
long pennies,
AbstractParty owner,
Party notary)
Puts together an issuance transaction from the given template, that starts out being owned by the given pubkey.
|
java.util.Set<java.security.PublicKey> |
generateIssue(TransactionBuilder tx,
Amount<net.corda.core.contracts.Issued> amount,
AbstractParty owner,
Party notary)
Puts together an issuance transaction for the specified amount that starts out being owned by the given pubkey.
|
Commands.Move |
generateMoveCommand() |
void |
verify(LedgerTransaction tx)
Takes an object that represents a state transition, and ensures the inputs/outputs/commands make sense.
Must throw an exception if there's a problem that should prevent state transition. Takes a single object
rather than an argument so that additional data can be added without breaking binary compatibility with
existing contract code.
|
deriveState, extractCommands, generateExit, generateExit, generateExitCommand, generateMoveCommand
public static java.lang.String PROGRAM_ID
public static Cash.Companion Companion
public Cash()
A cash transaction may split and merge money represented by a set of (issuer, depositRef) pairs, across multiple input and output states. Imagine a Bitcoin transaction but in which all UTXOs had a colour (a blend of issuer+depositRef) and you couldn't merge outputs of two colours together, but you COULD put them in the same transaction.
The goal of this design is to ensure that money can be withdrawn from the ledger easily: if you receive some money via this contract, you always know where to go in order to extract it from the R3 ledger, no matter how many hands it has passed through in the intervening time.
At the same time, other contracts that just want money and don't care much who is currently holding it in their vaults can ignore the issuer/depositRefs and just examine the amount fields.
public java.util.List<net.corda.core.contracts.CommandWithParties> extractCommands(java.util.Collection<? extends net.corda.core.contracts.CommandWithParties<? extends net.corda.core.contracts.CommandData>> commands)
public java.util.Set<java.security.PublicKey> generateIssue(TransactionBuilder tx, Issued<java.util.Currency> tokenDef, long pennies, AbstractParty owner, Party notary)
Puts together an issuance transaction from the given template, that starts out being owned by the given pubkey.
public java.util.Set<java.security.PublicKey> generateIssue(TransactionBuilder tx, Amount<net.corda.core.contracts.Issued> amount, AbstractParty owner, Party notary)
Puts together an issuance transaction for the specified amount that starts out being owned by the given pubkey.
public TransactionState<net.corda.finance.contracts.asset.Cash.State> deriveState(TransactionState<net.corda.finance.contracts.asset.Cash.State> txState, Amount<net.corda.core.contracts.Issued> amount, AbstractParty owner)
Derive a new transaction state based on the given example, with amount and owner modified. This allows concrete implementations to have fields in their state which we don't know about here, and we simply leave them untouched when sending out "change" from spending/exiting.
public Commands.Exit generateExitCommand(Amount<net.corda.core.contracts.Issued> amount)
public Commands.Move generateMoveCommand()
public void verify(LedgerTransaction tx)
Takes an object that represents a state transition, and ensures the inputs/outputs/commands make sense. Must throw an exception if there's a problem that should prevent state transition. Takes a single object rather than an argument so that additional data can be added without breaking binary compatibility with existing contract code.