ADR 0121 carried through to working code. `Builders` is the asking side and
`BuildMachine` the taking side, each with an implementation per bus, and the builder
binary and the `build` command now go through them.
On the bus being built, one publish does what two did. The old bus answered the asker
through a reply queue and announced to an events exchange, because two audiences meant
two topologies. Here the outcome is the role's own event: the asker matches it by the
id its request carried, the controller records it, the catalogue places it in the graph.
So a build machine publishes once, needs a reply queue for nothing, and needs a grant
over nobody's inbox — which is what ruled out the alternatives.
The outcome carries the module name now. Only the manifest says what was built, and on
the old bus the separate announcement carried it; with one message for three readers it
belongs in the result. A failed build names none, because it produced no module version
and the catalogue would otherwise place something that was never made.
Checked against a real server: the whole round trip; a third party on the role's event
hearing the same outcome the asker did, which is the claim the decision rests on; work
leaving the queue once settled, so no second machine repeats it; work submitted with no
machine holding the role waiting instead of failing, and being done when one arrives;
and work a machine handed back coming round again.
One thing I got wrong twice now and have written down where it bit: binding to a
consumer must name that consumer's own filter subject, not the narrower subject the
caller cares about. The client compares the two and refuses anything that is not equal,
with "subject does not match consumer".
The other implementation behind the seam, so the store-window guarantee now has
both: one loop, one message at a time, the same window deciding. What differs is
where a held message lives, and that is the whole point of the move — the AMQP
side keeps an unacknowledged delivery in this process, bounded by the prefetch
and lost if the controller stops; this keeps eight bytes saying when the window
opened, and the message stays the server's.
Checked against a running server, seven claims that reasoning cannot answer: a
report is heard and leaves the work queue; one the store cannot take is naked
with a delay, stays in the stream, and is recorded when the store returns; one
about a superseded declaration is settled without being acted on; one the store
never takes is let go once the bound passes; a heartbeat is heard and nothing is
persisted; and the enrolment answer reaches the address the request carried in
its payload — the test design 25 §2 asks for, so the reason for that field
cannot quietly become folklore.
Three things the wiring forced into the open:
**The controller could not have consumed a module event.** Its permissions
granted no event subject to subscribe and no ack subject on the events stream,
so every announcement would have been redelivered for ever, refused by the list
it already had. Both narrow: each followed subject named, not `mesh.mod.*.>`.
**The controller's consumers are not derived.** It files no manifest, so its
authority cannot come from a declaration that does not exist; they sit beside the
mesh's own streams and are asserted the same way. No max-deliver on CONTROL —
the window's bound is the controller's, and a server that dead-lettered first
would discard the push the stream exists to protect.
**Channels, not callbacks.** The library would run a handler on its own
goroutine, and the window's bookkeeping is unlocked because the AMQP loop never
had two.
jschoubben