jschoubben
2c8616b650
Numbers 008 and 009 were taken on main after this branch was opened (008-provider-runtime-has-no-seal-key, 009-runtime-config-change-does-not-restart, both merged). Renumber the seed-file-wipe and shared-directory issues to the next free numbers so merging records two more issues rather than duplicating two. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
52 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
52 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
status: open
|
|
opened: 2026-09-02
|
|
located-in: []
|
|
fixed-by:
|
|
amended-design:
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 012 — Six modules own what they must share
|
|
|
|
## The symptom, as observed
|
|
|
|
Found by review of the catalogue examples (2026-09-02). The media stack is several modules —
|
|
a library server, the acquisition managers, a download client and their satellites — and each
|
|
of them declares the same library and download directories as its own resources.
|
|
|
|
The resolver refuses two modules that declare one path on one node, with no exemption for
|
|
identical content and no merge. That rule is right in general: two owners of one path is the
|
|
class of fault this repository keeps recording. But sharing those directories on one machine
|
|
is the entire point of this stack — the download client and the managers must see the same
|
|
downloads, the library server must see the same libraries. So the set, as written, refuses
|
|
its own only sensible assignment.
|
|
|
|
No test co-resolves any two of them, which is why the manifests pass today. The first machine
|
|
to be assigned the stack together is where the refusal would have surfaced.
|
|
|
|
## Why it matters beyond the instance
|
|
|
|
The manifests can express *a directory I own* and nothing else, so a directory that is the
|
|
shared workspace of several modules was written six times as six private ones. The intention
|
|
— several modules, one filesystem contract between them — has no vocabulary, and this is not
|
|
a media-stack peculiarity: any pipeline of modules handing files to each other on one machine
|
|
(an ingest directory, a spool, a drop folder) hits the same wall.
|
|
|
|
It is also a fork in the design the catalogue has otherwise avoided: the fix could be a new
|
|
owning module the others depend on, a shared-resource concept in the manifest, or a statement
|
|
that co-located file handoff is not a thing the mesh supports and these modules are one
|
|
module. Each answer changes what a module *is*, which is why this is an issue and not a patch.
|
|
|
|
## Open questions
|
|
|
|
- Is the unit wrong — is a stack that must share a filesystem one module with several
|
|
containers, the way the mail module already is?
|
|
- If it stays several modules: does one of them own the directories and the rest require
|
|
them, and is *requiring a directory from a neighbour* a provision, a claim, or a third
|
|
thing?
|
|
- The duplicate-path rule protects against genuinely rivalrous owners. Whatever expresses
|
|
sharing must not weaken it for the cases where refusal is the right answer — what
|
|
distinguishes the two, machine-checkably?
|
|
- The mesh's own rule is that a rule states how it is checked: whichever shape is chosen,
|
|
what test co-resolves the stack so this class of refusal is caught before a machine is?
|