# ADR-004: Exactly two backends; manifest layers stay above the crate

## Status

Accepted

## Context

An early Phase 0 framing — "using two backends is ugly" — shaped several
rounds before being edited away, but the correction it was reaching for
arrived only in the Phase 1 review, and needs recording so no future
round reabsorbs the concern incorrectly:

- There are **always** two physical backends in this problem: storage
  for small content (fast, kv/sqlite) and the filesystem for large
  content. This is not ugly, it is the measured shape of the problem
  (POC #3 A4: crossover ~128-256 KiB; SQLite ~9-10× faster below it).
- The "two backends is ugly" sentiment was actually about a **third
  layer** in the old alknet-filesystem research — the *virtual
  filesystem / appfile* stack: path trees, branches, tombstones,
  filename↔hash maps living *alongside* the blob store (in that research,
  literally a co-equal SQLite store beside iroh-blobs).

If left implicit, this misframing has two failure modes: (a) this crate
absorbs a path-tree/manifest layer ("three backends"), growing tables,
schemas, and branching semantics that belong to consumers; (b) this
crate shapes itself such that a future vfs builder must hack around it.
alkfs is a pending consumer precisely of that manifest layer — this ADR
is the boundary it will build against.

## Decision

**This crate ships exactly two production backends and nothing more;
every manifest/namespace/path-tree layer is a consumer, by construction
and by contract.** (A non-production ephemeral `mem` tier exists for
tests — ADR-003; it is not a storage story and does not extend this
boundary.)

1. **Two production backends is the complete set.** kv/sqlite (small)
   + fs (large) cover the scale economics with measured evidence
   (ADR-003); no other physical tier is needed by any current or
   planned consumer's *blob* needs.
2. **The "third backend" is not this crate's layer.** The vfs/appfile
   shape — path→hash mapping, branches/tombstones/deltas per workspace,
   the alknet-filesystem lineage — is storage *above* the pool:
   reference sets over hashes (ADR-005's namespace machinery), not a
   Backend implementation. Consumers build it on their own storage
   (alkfs's path tree, alkgit's refs).
3. **The store provides the seams the manifest layer needs, and nothing
   that forces it to hack:**
   - hash-addressed put/get with a verified, git-interop-compatible
     addressing scheme (ADR-002) — manifests reference entries by the
     same canonical addresses git uses;
   - liveness registration so manifest-holds maps to GC roots without
     the store learning manifest formats (ADR-005);
   - `stat`/`read_range` — enough for serving path-resolved content and
     large-file ranges;
   - pinned batch puts — manifest-atomic multi-file writes are
     protected in flight (ADR-005).
4. **Namespacing at the store level is logical only** (ADR-005):
   reference tables above, flat bytes below. If a consumer wants
   physical isolation per tenant/repo, that is two pool deployments (a
   topology choice), never a namespace flag inside one.

## Consequences

**Positive**

- The crate's scope stays testable and small: two backends, one pool,
  one hash domain. No schema/versioning surface for manifest formats —
  consumers iterate on theirs freely.
- alkgit and alkfs build their (very different) mapping layers on one
  shared pool without either bending the store; their manifests interop
  at the address level by construction.
- The alknet-filesystem lineage is honored as *shape guidance* for
  consumers (branches, write sessions, chain walks), with zero of its
  storage-layer mechanics (SQLite path tables, honker wiring, CRDT
  sync) leaking in here.

**Negative**

- Consumers each re-build the small amount of manifest plumbing they
  need (a reference table and a root registration). This is deliberate:
  the manifest needs of alkgit (git refs) and alkfs (path trees) are
  different enough that a shared one would fit neither.

**Neutral**

- If a future consumer *did* want a first-party manifest layer, it
  would be a sibling crate over this one (e.g. `alkfs` itself), not an
  extension of this crate.

## References

- `docs/research/phase-0.md` (settled approach: pooled CAS; OQ-BL-05)
- `/workspace/@alkdev/alknet/docs/research/alknet-filesystem/poc-summary.md`
  — the historical lineage this ADR explicitly bounds (not a design
  input)
- ADR-003 (the two backends), ADR-005 (namespaces as reference sets)
- [overview.md](../overview.md) (consumer map: alkgit, alkfs);
  [backends-and-dispatch.md](../backends-and-dispatch.md)