Issue 114: land the controller's container-or-process question, renumbered

Filed 2026-09-24 on a branch of its own and never merged, numbered 113, which is taken. 114 is free because a sibling branch folded it, so it takes that number and keeps its commit. Kept separate from issue 117 rather than folded into it. 117 asks the same question of every module and locates the missing decision; this asks it of the controller, where `network: host` means container network isolation — the property that resource type usually buys — is not in use. That observation is this report's own and is nowhere in 117, and folding would lose it. Its first open question is answered by 117's diagnosis and now says so: the host's `process` shape is built, applied and tested, restart and run-to-completion semantics included, so deciding this does not wait on host-side work.
2026-09-25 16:16:21 +02:00
parent 10a2b706c6
commit 82a6badc7c
2 changed files with 25 additions and 4 deletions
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---

-# 113 — Should the controller run as a container, or as a process the host supervises directly?
+# 114 — Should the controller run as a container, or as a process the host supervises directly?

 ## What was observed

@@ -71,3 +71,16 @@ checked.
  a controller outage tolerable regardless of which resource type it is?
 - If the answer is "keep it a container," what does that answer, precisely, that this issue asked —
  so the next person who notices the same asymmetry finds it answered rather than open again?
+
+## The general case
+
+[Issue 117](../117-a-modules-own-code-is-a-container-and-a-process/00-report.md) is the same
+question asked of every module rather than of the controller: a module's own code is a `container`
+in [ADR 0047](../../02-DECISIONS/0047-a-module-runs-its-code-as-its-own-process-with-its-own-account.md)
+and a `process` in the to-be design, and no record moves it. Its
+[diagnosis](../117-a-modules-own-code-is-a-container-and-a-process/01-diagnosis.md) answers the
+first open question above: the host's `process` shape is built, applied and tested, including the
+restart and run-to-completion semantics — so this would not need host-side work first.
+
+The two do not collapse into one. The controller is not a code-carrying sidecar, and `network: host`
+is what makes the asymmetry visible here and nowhere else.
@@ -150,12 +150,20 @@ controller is declared a `container` with `network: host` — so container netwo
 property that resource type usually buys, is not in use — and it asks what `type: container` buys
 that `type: process` would not.

-It is unmerged and numbered 113, which is taken. A sibling branch,
-`issue/113-record-the-repin-and-fold-114`, is why `114` is free.
+It was unmerged and numbered 113, which is taken. A sibling branch,
+`issue/113-record-the-repin-and-fold-114`, is why `114` was free.

 **That report and this one are the instance and the general condition**, and they do not conflict:
 it asks about one module that is not a code-carrying sidecar at all, and reaches the same question
-from the opposite end.
+from the opposite end. So it lands in this change as
+[issue 114](../114-should-the-controller-be-a-container-or-a-process/00-report.md), its commit and
+authorship intact, with a section pointing here — rather than being folded in and losing the
+`network: host` observation, which is its own and is not reproduced above.
+
+This diagnosis answers its first open question. The host's `process` shape does support what
+[ADR 0005](../../02-DECISIONS/0005-the-node-host.md) describes for the host's own launcher — the
+unit, the timer, restart, and run-to-completion gating are implemented and tested — so that report
+does not need host-side work before it can be decided.

 ## What is located, and what is not