Merge main: renumber this branch's records around the trunk's
Both lines of work numbered from the same point, so four decision records and one design document existed twice with different content. The trunk keeps its numbers and this branch yields — the only rule that scales, because the trunk's are already cited by what merged before them. 0117 the bus is the only broker -> 0125 0118 a module declares its own seats -> 0126 0119 amqp is a provision, not the bus -> 0127 0120 the mesh bus is required -> 0128 0123 a seat carries its role's protocol -> 0129 0124 the predecessor is ending -> 0130 design 29, what a module declares -> design 32 Applied to the code repositories too, because a stale reference is worse when numbers collide than when they dangle: the reader lands on a real record that decided something else. Two reconciliations the merge forced, both real: **0110 was marked wholly superseded and was not.** Its successor says in as many words that everything 0110 decided about what a seat *is* stands untouched — and two records that landed on the trunk rest on exactly that part. So it is accepted again, extended rather than replaced, with a note saying which of its claims moved and where. **A seat's protocol becomes columns, not fields.** The trunk moved the seat set out of compiled code into a table the controller owns. This branch had added what a role accepts, emits and serves to the Go slice. The decision is unaffected and the mechanism is better for it: giving a role a protocol is now a write rather than a rebuild, which is the trunk's own argument applied to what this branch added. One check still fails and it fails on main too: a record resting on ADR 0112 while that is still 'proposed'. Left alone — it is not this merge's to answer.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ updated: 2026-09-25
|
||||
decisions:
|
||||
- 02-DECISIONS/0084-which-provider-serves-a-consumer.md
|
||||
- 02-DECISIONS/0027-a-provision-names-what-the-consumer-is-coupled-to.md
|
||||
- 02-DECISIONS/0118-a-module-declares-its-own-seats.md
|
||||
- 02-DECISIONS/0126-a-module-declares-its-own-seats.md
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# 23 — Choosing a provider
|
||||
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ to that provider and not to whichever one is nearest.
|
||||
**A seat names the mesh's one provider of a kind.** Where a seat delivers the provision, its holder
|
||||
answers for it when several providers exist and the consumer named none. That is not picking: the
|
||||
choice was made once, mesh-wide, by assigning the holder, rather than once per consumer by naming it
|
||||
([ADR 0118](../../02-DECISIONS/0118-a-module-declares-its-own-seats.md) (superseding [ADR 0110](../../02-DECISIONS/0110-a-seat-is-a-module-assignment-from-a-closed-set.md)),
|
||||
([ADR 0126](../../02-DECISIONS/0126-a-module-declares-its-own-seats.md) (superseding [ADR 0110](../../02-DECISIONS/0110-a-seat-is-a-module-assignment-from-a-closed-set.md)),
|
||||
[26 — The seats](26-the-seats.md)). A named provider still wins over the seat, because a consumer
|
||||
coupled to particular contents has said so.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user