Over-corrected: taking the port out of listens as well as serves made the module
declare it listens on nothing, and the parser said so.
ADR 0038 splits it. A module names the port its own software listens on, because
that is a fact about the software and it knows it. The mesh assigns the
machine-side number, because only the mesh knows what else is on the machine, and
it is the mesh that fills the assigned number into serves so a consumer is told
one number rather than three that agree by luck.
So what was wrong was writing a port into serves, not into listens.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
Written so the module system has something that proves itself rather than a claim
about what it supports, and guarded by a test in the catalogue's own suite so it
cannot quietly stop exercising things.
Nine of the host's eleven resource kinds, all three artifact kinds including the
one that compiles, all three ways a module's code can run, and all four things
that code can be: tools, an event consumer, a provisioner, and processes.
Two absences that are findings rather than gaps. `action` is refused to modules
outright — the link may not carry a command to run (ADR 0005), so a module that
needs something done ships a program that reconciles, which is what a run-once
process is. `service` puts an EXISTING unit into a state and installs none, which
is right for software shipping its own; code the mesh built has no unit until the
mesh writes one, and that is a process.
And it no longer picks its own port. ADR 0038 says a module cannot know what else
is on the machine it was assigned to, and names exactly the trap this fell into:
the number written three times — listens, serves, a container's ports — agreeing
only because one person wrote all three, with nothing checking. So it says what
it needs and the mesh assigns the number.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
jschoubben