A module is one piece of software and may still carry a daemon in one language,
tools in another and a package in a third. The first cut compiled every bundle
into the toolchain's single output directory, so two of them would have
overwritten each other and then been packed together — one artifact containing
both, published twice.
So output is a property of the artifact, not of the toolchain, and the toolchain
says how it is told where to write rather than where it writes. Under a directory
named for the build rather than beside the source, so a pack never sweeps up the
module's own working files.
A second toolchain is declared so the multi-language path is exercised rather
than asserted — a list with one entry cannot fail the way a list with four will.
And the fake compiler in the tests now writes where it was TOLD to. One that
always wrote to a fixed place would have passed whether or not each artifact got
its own directory, which is the whole of what these tests are for.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
The bundle recipe: the one that both builds and packs. An archive packs a
directory as it stands, so shipping compiled output meant compiling somewhere
first — which meant a Dockerfile repeating the same incantation in every module.
Two base arguments with no defaults, a working directory chosen so the SDK
resolves upward, the compiler invoked by absolute path because the usual symlink
is resolved away when the base image is assembled, a second stage, an environment
variable naming the entrypoints. Most of the catalogue is unconverted and that is
why; two conversions done in one session were each wrong twice with a working
example open in the next window.
A bundle says a language and a list of entrypoints. The mesh knows what the
language implies. Anything a module could override there it would be writing a
Dockerfile to override, so a toolchain is deliberately not configurable.
Declared rather than inferred, both of them: guessing the language from which
files are present makes a build depend on a directory listing, and guessing the
entrypoints makes it change meaning when somebody adds a helper.
A toolchain the mesh does not hold is refused before anything is compiled, naming
what to build first — the same treatment a missing base already gets, because it
is the same question and somebody can answer it. A language the mesh does not
build is refused saying what would have worked, since the author is usually one
word away.
The list of languages is closed and adding to it is a decision. Every language is
another implementation of the contracts every module shares, and those change
rarely and cascade when they do (ADR 0039) — a mesh whose SDKs disagree about the
envelope fails by ignoring messages rather than by failing to compile.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
jschoubben