why are arbitrary low number of paths forced?

[shortthefomo]

could this bit of code get documented why handicapped as well as it seems a little low, considering today one is able to max out these bounds

if multiple AMM POOLs/DEXs are part of the payment.

/* The largest number of paths we allow */
    static std::size_t const MaxPathSize = 6;

    /* The longest path we allow */
    static std::size_t const MaxPathLength = 8;

code in question is here

rippled/include/xrpl/tx/transactors/payment/Payment.h

Line 10 in 7b12c00

static std::size_t const MaxPathSize = 6;

[shortthefomo]

also strange another max size value is used else where limiting to 4

rippled/src/xrpld/app/paths/PathRequest.h

Line 157 in 7b12c00

static unsigned int const max_paths_ = 4;

think this value should be 6 as well. or rather min(MaxPathSize, MaxPathLength)

[xVet]

could this bit of code get documented why handicapped as well as it seems a little low, considering today one is able to max out these bounds

if multiple AMM POOLs/DEXs are part of the payment.

/* The largest number of paths we allow */

    static std::size_t const MaxPathSize = 6;



    /* The longest path we allow */

    static std::size_t const MaxPathLength = 8;

code in question is here

rippled/include/xrpl/tx/transactors/payment/Payment.h

Line 10 in 7b12c00

static std::size_t const MaxPathSize = 6;

i think the issue would be you could chain such a long path that it would hurt consensus and throughput.

It's arbitrary indeed though.

[shortthefomo]

Yeah why im asking possibly this needs to then be document why this is the case. At the moment saying this is the max we allow has no significance.