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**0110 was marked wholly superseded and was not.** Its successor says in as many words that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.
Every module named its events the way the old bus spelled a routing key, so on the
new bus every cross-module subscription pointed at a namespace nobody publishes to.
Nothing failed — the services started and none of them reacted. Converted, and the
rule now has checks at both scales: at registration for one manifest, and as a test
across the whole catalogue where a consumed event's emitter is present.
It was larger than the report said, in two directions nobody had looked. Forty-three
files of module code pass the event name at runtime, so the code mattered as much as
the manifests. And both clients had to learn the mapping — without that, converting
the modules would have broken the mesh that is actually running, which is the
opposite of what fixing this was for.
Design 29 gained three things it did not say: what a wildcard is (`*` for one name,
`**` for the rest, spelled the mesh's way and derived to each bus's own), that an
event about a role belongs on the seat and why that is not yet possible, and how the
rule is checked — because "a subscription that matches nothing is silence" is exactly
why nobody noticed thirty-seven manifests being wrong the same way.
4.2 and 4.3 are unblocked. The catch-up half of 4.5 is not: it is a decision, and it
narrowed rather than closed. It cannot be a reply to a module's inbox, because that
needs the blanket grant design 25 §4 refuses.
The controller's inbound is through a seam with both transports behind it, and
the store window is now the server's rather than the controller's memory. Seven
claims about that were asked of a running server rather than reasoned.
Wiring the controller's own subscription is what found issue 127: every event
name in the catalogue is still written the way a routing key is, so design 29's
derivation turns a consumer's declaration into a subject no emitter publishes.
Thirty-seven manifests, one that cannot be composed at all. It fails on the first
mesh raised on the new bus and not before, which is why nothing had caught it —
the conformance fixtures pin one emitter against one subject, and both halves of
that pair are correct.
The node-facing flows are unaffected: those subjects are the mesh's own and
derive from nothing a module declares.
jschoubben