Glossary, the mesh-controller/foundation vocabulary, ADR 0076, Phase 3 closed #43

Merged
jschoubben merged 32 commits from issue/047-the-other-half into main 2026-09-16 21:25:51 +00:00
Showing only changes of commit 03fc13b84b - Show all commits
@@ -62,6 +62,28 @@ legitimate provision and `lavinmq` is one provider of it.
So adoption is not only an upgrade path. It is two rows of a mesh's module list becoming one,
twice.
## And it is one SERVER each, not two
**The broker duplication is running today, not just latent.** The lavinmq module raises its own
`server` container and points its provisioner at `http://lavinmq:15672` — a second LavinMQ,
separate from the substrate's `mesh-broker`. A mesh with the module assigned runs both.
This is not how LavinMQ is meant to be used, and the module's own provisioner says so: a consumer
is given a *vhost* named for its login, isolated from every other consumer's by the vhost boundary
— *"the exact analog of postgres's database-per-login"*. One server hosts the mesh's own control
traffic on the `/` vhost and every consumer's broker as a vhost beside it. Two servers is the same
mistake as two postgres containers, wearing AMQP.
So adoption means the lavinmq module does not run a `server` of its own. Its server IS the
substrate broker, adopted; the module contributes the provisioner, the tools, the event consumer
and the run-once bootstrap that configures it — all against the one broker. Same for postgres: one
server, the control plane's records in their databases and every module's database beside them.
**The provisioner already assumes this** — it creates a vhost, not a broker — so the change is
removing the second server, not building a new isolation model. What has to be designed is only the
adoption itself: raising the one broker at genesis because nothing else can, then holding it as the
module, over the broker it is.
## What makes this harder than it looks
**The recursion is real, not incidental.** The control plane learns what modules exist by reading