Commit Graph
1 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
jschoubben 1f0fb85128 A daemon says what to run, not how it is hosted
The mechanism was leaking into every module. Code of one's own meant a container
and therefore an image; a script meant a service and a unit somebody else had to
install. One intent — run this and keep it running — expressed two unrelated
ways, with the hosting chosen before anything could be declared.

A daemon names a bundle and a command. The host fetches it, refuses it unless it
hashes to what was declared, unpacks it where the mesh keeps such things, writes
the unit and puts it in the state asked for. The unit is the mesh's, generated
whole and saying so, because an edit that survives until the next declaration and
then vanishes is worse than one that is refused.

Its identity is the bytes AND how it is run: two daemons from one bundle
differing only in their command are different daemons, and tracking the digest
alone would call the second unchanged and leave the first running. The unit is
rendered deterministically for the same reason — environment from a map would be
written in Go's iteration order, so every apply would see a different unit and
restart an unchanged daemon for ever.

restart-on is honoured as a service's is: a running process does not re-read its
configuration, so replacing a file and finding the daemon already up leaves the
machine behaving as before while every check passes.

A full-host shape, not a portable one: it needs a process supervisor to install
into. It does NOT need a container runtime, which is the point.

Two guards caught this properly and both were updated deliberately rather than
silenced: the vocabulary count, which exists because every addition widens what a
compromised control plane can express, and the shape test that catches a kind the
language has and a host cannot apply — added after `network` did exactly that.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
2026-09-15 02:29:33 +02:00