jschoubben
6abfec7433
Fixes, each named where it was wrong: - reload-on is a service field; a container only has restart-on, which recreates. Cited precedent (registry-trust-reload) is a service resource, not a container. Fix: nats-server's own SIGHUP reload, triggered by an in-image entrypoint watching a directory-mounted config file (issue 103's recreate-on-change applies to a directly-mounted file, not a directory's contents) -- asks nothing new of the host. - A JetStream-delivered message's Reply field is already claimed by the consumer's own ack address, so a responder using it answers nobody. Fix: every CONTROL message needing a reply carries its reply subject in its own payload; the controller publishes there explicitly, never via Respond(). Enrolment is the case this design actually depends on, so it's fixed there too, not just noted. - The listed permissions never granted publish on a durable consumer's own ack-reply subject -- a module could receive but never ack, so every message redelivers forever. Fixed with a scoped grant per module's own consumer. - One account (a deliberate choice, kept) means inbox privacy is the permission list or nothing. The design granted 'its reply inbox' without scoping it, which read as any user reaching any inbox. Fixed: each user's inbox prefix is derived from its own identity and its permissions name only that prefix. New open question from this revision, not closed: whether the in-image watch-and-SIGHUP shape belongs in mesh-sdk if a second module ever needs it. Checks pass (records.py, cycle.py, index.py).
03-DESIGN
The authoritative specification. Implementation is built against what is written here.
Two layers
| Folder | What it is |
|---|---|
00-as-is/ |
The mesh that exists today. Shipped behaviour, described as it is — including behaviour nobody would choose again. |
01-to-be/ |
The mesh being built toward. Every statement traceable to a record in 02-DECISIONS/. |
They are never mixed. A statement about the future does not belong in an as-is document, and an as-is document is never edited to describe an intention.
When a to-be design ships, it does not move. Its as-is counterpart is written or updated,
the to-be document's status becomes implemented, and both stand — one describing what runs,
the other recording what was intended. Deleting the intention loses the reasoning, which is
the expensive half.
Frontmatter
Every design document (not the READMEs) carries:
---
layer: as-is | to-be
status: designed | in-progress | implemented | abandoned
code: [] # owning code repo(s), from 00-META/repos.md
updated: YYYY-MM-DD # date of the last status change, not of text edits
decisions: [] # 02-DECISIONS/ records this document rests on
---
For an as-is document, status: implemented is the normal state — it describes something that
runs — and code: names where that implementation lives.
Status changes when implementation state changes, never because design text was edited. An
implemented claim must be defensible from the owning repository's main branch, not from
intent. If it cannot be checked, it is in-progress.
Cross-cutting views are generated from this frontmatter by the hq-status skill and never
written to disk.
What belongs here
Functional analysis, architectural description, and specification — prose and diagrams
only, no code. A manifest field may be named; a manifest may not be pasted. A document
enters the to-be layer only after the decision behind it is recorded in 02-DECISIONS/
and the research that produced it is closed.
Subfolders are encouraged where a layer grows enough to need them.