2026-09-26 12:14:38 +00:00
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,
+It was unmerged and numbered 113, which is taken. A sibling branch,
-`issue/113-record-the-repin-and-fold-114`, is why `114` is free.
+`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