Ahh got it, thanks! I didn’t realize that the current ETHRegistrarController would remain as a controller for the registrar (that’s what you mean right?). I know that the registrar has a
removeController method, and so that would not be performed as a part of the on-chain DAO proposal for these new contracts.
I was going off of what Jeff said in the first post, so that’s where I was confused:
Anyway I think that resolves my concerns then, thanks! Basically the NameWrapper will just not support really long labels, and I think that’s fine. Or at least I can’t think of any problem with that.
Just thinking out loud though, wouldn’t it be better for future maintainability if the new ETHRegistrarController was made a controller for the registrar as well, and then it could have an alternate method (or flag parameter) to register unwrapped names directly?
Otherwise now we’ll have two registrar controllers to maintain. So if we want to change the price oracle we’ll need to do it on both. And if we want to make more complex price structure changes that requires code changes for the registrar controller, then we’ll need to make changes to both contracts, deploy both, and replace both as controllers on the .eth registrar.