glm-5.2
5941280bca
Address the root cause of rework-causing hedging: the architect was
put in a logical bind where it couldn't express justified uncertainty
('the pieces exist but the shape isn't clear yet'). The only options
were 'decide now' (premature) or 'deferred(scope)' (false — the
information isn't missing, it's un-synthesized). The agent picked
deferred(scope) with a circular blocking condition (OQ-64 blocked on
OQ-55, OQ-55 needs OQ-64) because there was no honest way to say 'I
can see the pieces but I can't see the shape.'
Changes to the architect role spec:
- Add deferred(unclear) state: the pieces exist but the composition
isn't clear; resolution requires investigation (work through
examples, POC), not waiting. Has an investigation target and an
impacts field.
- Add 'Impacts' field to the OQ format: what does this block
downstream? Be specific ('blocks the first hub deployment because
the hub dials workers' not 'blocks the hub crate'). The triage
signal that makes deferral urgency visible — the field that would
have made the AlknetClient circular hedge visible.
- Add circular-reasoning guard to self-review: 'check that your
blocking condition isn't a prerequisite of the thing you're
deferring.'
- Trim anti-patterns #9-#11 (hedging synonyms catalog, ~40 lines):
detection belongs in the reviewer, not the architect's self-review.
The architect is too close to its own reasoning to see its own
circular hedges.
- Trim door-types section (30→10 lines): keep the one-paragraph
summary, cut the elaboration.
Changes to the architecture-reviewer role spec:
- Add Decision Quality (F) category: false-deferral check
distinguishing three cases — (1) hedging on a resolved decision, (2)
false deferral / circular hedge (the blocking condition is a
prerequisite of the thing being deferred), (3) legitimate deferral.
- Add Impacts Field Coverage (G) category: check that unresolved OQs
have specific impacts fields.
- Note: the Decision Quality category is often the highest-value
check on poorly-defined projects — the architect cannot self-review
it (circular reasoning is invisible from inside the circle).
Retrofit existing OQs:
- Add Impacts field to all 16 unresolved OQs (10 deferred, 6 open).
- Update OQ-63 (TlsError shape) to reflect ADR-087's client-side
addition — the error type now covers both server and client
variants.
- Move OQ-65 (WebSocket carrying channels) to alknet-http theme
(done in prior commit; this commit adds its impacts field).
- Verified: no circular reasoning found in existing deferrals. The
AlknetClient hedge (OQ-64) was the circular one; it's already
resolved by ADR-087.
80 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
80 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
# OQ-65: Should WebSocket Carry the Channels Protocol (Not Just the Call Protocol)?
|
|
|
|
- **Origin**: `docs/architecture/crates/http/websocket.md` (ADR-048
|
|
specifies WebSocket carries the native call-protocol session — the
|
|
`EventEnvelope` wire format over a WebSocket text/binary frame
|
|
stream); `docs/architecture/decisions/086-endpoint-types-and-entry-points.md`
|
|
§3 (the web config advertises `alknet/channels` for the
|
|
WebSocket-carrying-channels path — a path ADR-048 does not specify).
|
|
- **Status**: open
|
|
- **Door type**: one-way (this supersedes or extends ADR-048's
|
|
"WebSocket carries the native call-protocol session" decision. If
|
|
WebSocket carries channels, a browser opens one WebSocket and gets
|
|
the full channels substrate — `channel/open`, data-channel ALPNs,
|
|
the relay path through the hub — instead of only the call-protocol
|
|
session. This is a browser-wire-format one-way door: once browsers
|
|
depend on the channels-over-WebSocket framing, changing it is a
|
|
breaking change for every browser client.)
|
|
- **Priority**: medium (the browser story works without this —
|
|
ADR-048's call-protocol-only WebSocket is functional — but
|
|
channels-over-WebSocket makes the browser a first-class channels
|
|
participant, which simplifies the hub relay and the browser's access
|
|
to data-channel ALPNs like TTY and tunnels. The question is whether
|
|
the simplification is worth the one-way-door commitment now, or
|
|
whether the call-protocol-only path suffices until a concrete
|
|
browser-needs-a-data-channel use case arrives.)
|
|
- **Impacts**: Does not block the browser path (ADR-048 works). Would
|
|
simplify the hub relay (one model, not two) and unblock browser
|
|
access to data-channel ALPNs (TTY, tunnels) over a single WebSocket
|
|
if resolved to "WebSocket carries channels."
|
|
- **Resolution**: Not yet decided. The two options:
|
|
|
|
**Option A — WebSocket carries call only (ADR-048 unchanged).** The
|
|
browser opens a WebSocket and gets a call-protocol session
|
|
(`EventEnvelope` over WebSocket frames). Data-channel ALPNs (TTY,
|
|
tunnels) are not accessible from the browser — the browser can invoke
|
|
call operations but cannot open a `alknet/tty` channel. A browser
|
|
needing a TTY would use a separate WebSocket per session, each
|
|
carrying the TTY wire format directly (not via `channel/open`).
|
|
Simpler; the browser is a call-protocol client, not a channels
|
|
client.
|
|
|
|
**Option B — WebSocket carries channels (extends/supersedes
|
|
ADR-048).** The browser opens a WebSocket and gets a channels
|
|
connection — the 9-byte chunk format (ADR-071) over WebSocket binary
|
|
frames, with channel 0 as `alknet/call` and data channels opened via
|
|
`channel/open`. The browser is a full channels participant: it can
|
|
open TTY channels, tunnels, etc. through the same WebSocket. The
|
|
hub relay (ADR-079) works unchanged — the browser leg is a channels
|
|
connection, same as a native leg. This is the "browser as
|
|
channels client" path.
|
|
|
|
The trade-off: Option B commits to the channels-over-WebSocket
|
|
framing as a browser wire format (one-way door), but makes the
|
|
browser a first-class channels participant and simplifies the hub
|
|
(one relay model, not two). Option A keeps the browser simpler but
|
|
means the browser cannot use data-channel ALPNs over the same
|
|
connection — each data-channel ALPN needs its own WebSocket and its
|
|
own browser-side implementation.
|
|
|
|
This question is decision-ready when the first browser-needs-a-
|
|
data-channel use case arrives (e.g., a browser-based terminal that
|
|
needs `alknet/tty` over the hub). Until then, ADR-048's
|
|
call-protocol-only path is the implemented browser path, and the
|
|
web config advertises `alknet/channels` by default (per ADR-086 §3,
|
|
so the hub is ready for Option B if chosen).
|
|
|
|
Note: this is distinct from the WebTransport path (deferred per
|
|
ADR-044). WebTransport, when revived, would carry channels natively
|
|
(a WT bidi stream = a channels connection). WebSocket-carrying-
|
|
channels is the WebSocket equivalent — same substrate, different
|
|
transport. If Option B is chosen, the WebSocket-channels framing
|
|
and the WebTransport-channels framing share the channels wire
|
|
format (ADR-071); only the transport differs.
|
|
- **Cross-references**: ADR-048 (WebSocket carries the native
|
|
call-protocol session — the current decision this OQ may supersede
|
|
or extend), ADR-071 (channels wire format — the 9-byte chunk format
|
|
that would ride over WebSocket binary frames), ADR-079 (hub relay —
|
|
unchanged if the browser is a channels client), ADR-086 §3 (the web
|
|
config advertises `alknet/channels` for this path), ADR-044
|
|
(WebTransport deferred; WebSocket is the v1 browser path) |