Should we move the cancelMultiple function to the periphery?

[PaulRBerg]

We are struggling to keep the size of the SablierV2Pro contract under 24kB. It is currently at ~22.8kB, and I fear that after we implement #239, #246, and #255, we will go over the limit.

If I now think about it, I can't remember why we implemented the cancelAll function in the core contract. Was there a real reason, or was the motive a bit of laziness to move them to a different repo?

I realize why we did it for withdrawMultiple - this is a function that is mostly useful for the recipient. But the converse applies to cancelAll - it's a function mostly useful for the sender. Therefore, just like createMultiple (that batch-creates streams), we could easily move this function to the periphery.

Any thoughts, @andreivladbrg and @razgraf?

[razgraf]

The cancel method is onlySender right? I guess you won't be able to perform it through a proxy if it checks msg.sender === stream.sender. Hence, it having to live in the core contract.

[PaulRBerg]

cancel is onlySenderOrRecipient.

Anyway, this is a great point, which instantly invalidates my idea. Thanks, Razvan.

[PaulRBerg]

We will need to figure out other ways to lower the size of SablierV2Pro (saving my ideas for another discussion).

[PaulRBerg]

Locking based on @razgraf's observation above, and the fact that the way to go regarding the size of the pro contract is to lower the number of optimizer runs.