It’s time to put everything you’ve learned so far together into a complete and secure Daml model for asset issuance, management, transfer, and trading. This application will have capabilities similar to the one in Daml IOU Quickstart Tutorial. In the process you will learn about a few more concepts:
- Daml projects, packages and modules
- Composition of transactions
- Observers and stakeholders
- Daml’s execution model
The model in this section is not a single Daml file, but a Daml project consisting of several files that depend on each other.
Remember that you can load all the code for this section into a folder called
intro7 by running
daml new intro7 --template daml-intro-7
Daml is organized in projects, packages and modules. A Daml project is specified using a single
daml.yaml file, and compiles into a package in Daml’s intermediate language, or bytecode equivalent, Daml-LF. Each Daml file within a project becomes a Daml module, which is a bit like a namespace. Each Daml project has a source root specified in the
source parameter in the project’s
daml.yaml file. The package will include all modules specified in
*.daml files beneath that source directory.
You can start a new project with a skeleton structure using
daml new project-name in the terminal. A minimal project would contain just a
daml.yaml file and an empty directory of source files.
Take a look at the
daml.yamlfor the this chapter’s project:
sdk-version: __VERSION__ name: __PROJECT_NAME__ source: daml version: 1.0.0 dependencies: - daml-prim - daml-stdlib - daml-script
You can generally set
version freely to describe your project.
dependencies does what the name suggests: It includes dependencies. You should always include
daml-stdlib. The former contains internals of compiler and Daml Runtime, the latter gives access to the Daml Standard Library.
daml-script contains the types and standard library for Daml Script.
You compile a Daml project by running
daml build from the project root directory. This creates a
dar file in
dar file is Daml’s equivalent of a
JAR file in Java: it’s the artifact that gets deployed to a ledger to load the package and its dependencies.
dar files are fully self-contained in that they contain all dependencies of the main package. More on all of this in Work with Dependencies.
This project contains an asset holding model for transferable, fungible assets and a separate trade workflow. The templates are structured in three modules:
In addition, there are tests in modules
All but the last
.-separated segment in module names correspond to paths relative to the project source directory, and the last one to a file name. The folder structure therefore looks like this:
. ├── daml │ ├── Intro │ │ ├── Asset │ │ │ ├── Role.daml │ │ │ └── Trade.daml │ │ └── Asset.daml │ └── Test │ └── Intro │ ├── Asset │ │ ├── Role.daml │ │ └── Trade.daml │ └── Asset.daml └── daml.yaml
Each file contains a module header. For example,
module Intro.Asset.Role where
You can import one module into another using the
import keyword. The
LibraryModules module imports all six modules:
Imports always have to appear just below the module declaration. You can optionally add a list of names after the import to import only the selected names:
import DA.List (sortOn, groupOn)
If your module contains any Daml Scripts, you need to import the corresponding functionality:
The project both changes and adds to the
Iou model presented in Parties and Authority:
Assets are fungible in the sense that they have
Splitchoices that allow the
ownerto manage their holdings.
Transfer proposals now need the authorities of both
newOwnerto accept. This makes
Ioufrom the issuer’s point of view.
issuercould end up owing cash to anyone as transfers were authorized by just
newOwner. In this project, only parties having an
AssetHoldercontract can end up owning assets. This allows the
issuerto determine which parties may own their assets.
Tradetemplate adds a swap of two assets to the model.
Composed Choices and Scripts¶
This project showcases how you can put the
Script actions you learned about in Parties and Authority to good use. For example, the
Split choices each perform several actions in their consequences.
- Two create actions in case of
- One create and one archive action in case of
choice Split : SplitResult with splitQuantity : Decimal controller owner do splitAsset <- create this with quantity = splitQuantity remainder <- create this with quantity = quantity - splitQuantity return SplitResult with splitAsset remainder choice Merge : ContractId Asset with otherCid : ContractId Asset controller owner do other <- fetch otherCid assertMsg "Merge failed: issuer does not match" (issuer == other.issuer) assertMsg "Merge failed: owner does not match" (owner == other.owner) assertMsg "Merge failed: symbol does not match" (symbol == other.symbol) archive otherCid create this with quantity = quantity + other.quantity
return function used in
Split is available in any
Action context. The result of
return x is a no-op containing the value
x. It has an alias
pure, indicating that it’s a pure value, as opposed to a value with side-effects. The
return name makes sense when it’s used as the last statement in a
do block as its argument is indeed the “return”-value of the
do block in that case.
Taking transaction composition a step further, the
Trade_Settle choice on
Trade composes two
choice Trade_Settle : (ContractId Asset, ContractId Asset) with quoteAssetCid : ContractId Asset baseApprovalCid : ContractId TransferApproval controller quoteAsset.owner do fetchedBaseAsset <- fetch baseAssetCid assertMsg "Base asset mismatch" (baseAsset == fetchedBaseAsset with observers = baseAsset.observers) fetchedQuoteAsset <- fetch quoteAssetCid assertMsg "Quote asset mismatch" (quoteAsset == fetchedQuoteAsset with observers = quoteAsset.observers) transferredBaseCid <- exercise baseApprovalCid TransferApproval_Transfer with assetCid = baseAssetCid transferredQuoteCid <- exercise quoteApprovalCid TransferApproval_Transfer with assetCid = quoteAssetCid return (transferredBaseCid, transferredQuoteCid)
The resulting transaction, with its two nested levels of consequences, can be seen in the
test_trade script in
TX 14 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z (Test.Intro.Asset.Trade:79:23) #14:0 │ disclosed to (since): 'Alice' (14), 'Bob' (14) └─> 'Bob' exercises Trade_Settle on #12:0 (Intro.Asset.Trade:Trade) with quoteAssetCid = #9:1; baseApprovalCid = #13:1 children: #14:1 │ disclosed to (since): 'Alice' (14), 'Bob' (14), 'USD_Bank' (14) └─> fetch #10:1 (Intro.Asset:Asset) #14:2 │ disclosed to (since): 'Alice' (14), 'Bob' (14), 'EUR_Bank' (14) └─> fetch #9:1 (Intro.Asset:Asset) #14:3 │ disclosed to (since): 'Alice' (14), 'Bob' (14), 'USD_Bank' (14) └─> 'Alice', 'Bob' exercises TransferApproval_Transfer on #13:1 (Intro.Asset:TransferApproval) with assetCid = #10:1 children: #14:4 │ disclosed to (since): 'Alice' (14), 'Bob' (14), 'USD_Bank' (14) └─> fetch #10:1 (Intro.Asset:Asset) #14:5 │ disclosed to (since): 'Alice' (14), 'Bob' (14), 'USD_Bank' (14) └─> 'Alice', 'USD_Bank' exercises Archive on #10:1 (Intro.Asset:Asset) #14:6 │ disclosed to (since): 'Alice' (14), 'Bob' (14), 'USD_Bank' (14) └─> create Intro.Asset:Asset with issuer = 'USD_Bank'; owner = 'Bob'; symbol = "USD"; quantity = 100.0000000000; observers =  #14:7 │ disclosed to (since): 'Alice' (14), 'Bob' (14), 'EUR_Bank' (14) └─> 'Alice', 'Bob' exercises TransferApproval_Transfer on #11:1 (Intro.Asset:TransferApproval) with assetCid = #9:1 children: #14:8 │ disclosed to (since): 'Alice' (14), 'Bob' (14), 'EUR_Bank' (14) └─> fetch #9:1 (Intro.Asset:Asset) #14:9 │ disclosed to (since): 'Alice' (14), 'Bob' (14), 'EUR_Bank' (14) └─> 'Bob', 'EUR_Bank' exercises Archive on #9:1 (Intro.Asset:Asset) #14:10 │ disclosed to (since): 'Alice' (14), 'Bob' (14), 'EUR_Bank' (14) └─> create Intro.Asset:Asset with issuer = 'EUR_Bank'; owner = 'Alice'; symbol = "EUR"; quantity = 90.0000000000; observers = 
Similar to choices, you can see how the scripts in this project are built up from each other:
test_issuance = do setupResult@(alice, bob, bank, aha, ahb) <- setupRoles assetCid <- submit bank do exerciseCmd aha Issue_Asset with symbol = "USD" quantity = 100.0 Some asset <- queryContractId bank assetCid assert (asset == Asset with issuer = bank owner = alice symbol = "USD" quantity = 100.0 observers =  ) return (setupResult, assetCid)
In the above, the
test_issuance script in
Test.Intro.Asset.Role uses the output of the
setupRoles script in the same module.
The same line shows a new kind of pattern matching. Rather than writing
setupResult <- setupRoles and then accessing the components of
_2, etc., you can give them names. It’s equivalent to writing:
setupResult <- setupRoles case setupResult of (alice, bob, bank, aha, ahb) -> ...
(alice, bob, bank, aha, ahb) <- setupRoles would also be legal, but
setupResult is used in the return value of
test_issuance so it makes sense to give it a name, too. The notation with
@ allows you to give both the whole value as well as its constituents names in one go.
Daml’s Execution Model¶
Daml’s execution model is fairly easy to understand, but has some important consequences. You can imagine the life of a transaction as follows:
- Command Submission
- A user submits a list of Commands via the Ledger API of a Participant Node, acting as a Party hosted on that Node. That party is called the requester.
- Each Command corresponds to one or more Actions. During this step, the
Updatecorresponding to each Action is evaluated in the context of the ledger to calculate all consequences, including transitive ones (consequences of consequences, etc.). The result of this is a complete Transaction. Together with its requestor, this is also known as a Commit.
- On ledgers with strong privacy, projections (see Privacy) for all involved parties are created. This is also called projecting.
- Transaction Submission
- The Transaction/Commit is submitted to the network.
- The Transaction/Commit is validated by the network. Who exactly validates can differ from implementation to implementation. Validation also involves scheduling and collision detection, ensuring that the transaction has a well-defined place in the (partial) ordering of Commits, and no double spends occur.
- The Commit is actually committed according to the commit or consensus protocol of the Ledger.
- The network sends confirmations of the commitment back to all involved Participant Nodes.
- The user gets back a confirmation through the Ledger API of the submitting Participant Node.
The first important consequence of the above is that all transactions are committed atomically. Either a transaction is committed as a whole and for all participants, or it fails.
That’s important in the context of the
Trade_Settle choice shown above. The choice transfers a
baseAsset one way and a
quoteAsset the other way. Thanks to transaction atomicity, there is no chance that either party is left out of pocket.
The second consequence is that the requester of a transaction knows all consequences of their submitted transaction – there are no surprises in Daml. However, it also means that the requester must have all the information to interpret the transaction. We also refer to this as Principle 2 a bit later on this page.
That’s also important in the context of
Trade. In order to allow Bob to interpret a transaction that transfers Alice’s cash to Bob, Bob needs to know both about Alice’s
Asset contract, as well as about some way for
Alice to accept a transfer – remember, accepting a transfer needs the authority of
issuer in this example.
Observers are Daml’s mechanism to disclose contracts to other parties. They are declared just like signatories, but using the
observer keyword, as shown in the
template Asset with issuer : Party owner : Party symbol : Text quantity : Decimal observers : [Party] where signatory issuer, owner ensure quantity > 0.0 observer observers
Asset template also gives the
owner a choice to set the observers, and you can see how Alice uses it to show her
Asset to Bob just before proposing the trade. You can try out what happens if she didn’t do that by removing that transaction:
usdCid <- submit alice do exerciseCmd usdCid SetObservers with newObservers = [bob]
Observers have guarantees in Daml. In particular, they are guaranteed to see actions that create and archive the contract on which they are an observer.
Since observers are calculated from the arguments of the contract, they always know about each other. That’s why, rather than adding Bob as an observer on Alice’s
AssetHolder contract, and using that to authorize the transfer in
Trade_Settle, Alice creates a one-time authorization in the form of a
TransferAuthorization. If Alice had lots of counterparties, she would otherwise end up leaking them to each other.
Controllers declared in the
choice syntax are not automatically made observers, as they can only be calculated at the point in time when the choice arguments are known. On the contrary, controllers declared via the
controller cs can syntax are automatically made observers, but this syntax is deprecated and will be removed in a future version of Daml.
Daml’s privacy model is based on two principles:
Principle 1. Parties see those actions that they have a stake in. Principle 2. Every party that sees an action sees its (transitive) consequences.
Principle 2 is necessary to ensure that every party can independently verify the validity of every transaction they see.
A party has a stake in an action if
- they are a required authorizer of it
- they are a signatory of the contract on which the action is performed
- they are an observer on the contract, and the action creates or archives it
What does that mean for the
exercise tradeCid Trade_Settle action from
Alice is the signatory of
tradeCid and Bob a required authorizer of the
Trade_Settled action, so both of them see it. According to principle 2 above, that means they get to see everything in the transaction.
The consequences contain, next to some
fetch actions, two
exercise actions of the choice
Each of the two involved
TransferApproval contracts is signed by a different
issuer, which see the action on “their” contract. So the EUR_Bank sees the
TransferApproval_Transfer action for the EUR
Asset and the USD_Bank sees the
TransferApproval_Transfer action for the USD
Some Daml ledgers, like the script runner and the Sandbox, work on the principle of “data minimization”, meaning nothing more than the above information is distributed. That is, the “projection” of the overall transaction that gets distributed to EUR_Bank in step 4 of Daml’s Execution Model would consist only of the
TransferApproval_Transfer and its consequences.
Other implementations, in particular those on public blockchains, may have weaker privacy constraints.
Note that principle 2 of the privacy model means that sometimes parties see contracts that they are not signatories or observers on. If you look at the final ledger state of the
test_trade script, for example, you may notice that both Alice and Bob now see both assets, as indicated by the Xs in their respective columns:
This is because the
create action of these contracts are in the transitive consequences of the
Trade_Settle action both of them have a stake in. This kind of disclosure is often called “divulgence” and needs to be considered when designing Daml models for privacy sensitive applications.