coulomb/frontend-patterns
5
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Complete the bounded language 0.1 research preview

Browse source 
Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra
Assistant-Session: 01a0e241-8285-7a63-8c0c-51c9cb824dc3
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-27 11:49:48 +02:00
parent 8cc7016e1f
commit 53bb65e7a6
26 changed files with 2497 additions and 33 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

21
technologies/OfflineRecovery.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
# Offline recovery: mechanism mappings
0.1 research preview. Previously reviewed documentation locates partial mechanisms,
not verified whole-pattern guarantees. Review dates/access limits are retained in
[LocalFirstEvidenceExpansion](../research/reviews/LocalFirstEvidenceExpansion.md).
[Offline sequence](../sequences/LocalFirstApplication.md).
| Decision | Located mechanism | Boundary |
| --- | --- | --- |
| CAND-0002 — local acceptance | Joplin local SQLite storage, E04; local-first motivation E01 | Does not specify our revision-plus-pending atomic commit, acknowledgement/flush or crash contract |
| CAND-0003 — pending propagation | Joplin distinct sync process and per-item progress metadata E05/E06 | Does not verify deduplication, bounded completion or atomic supersession proposed by this candidate |
| CAND-0001 — preserve competing content | Joplin detected-note conflicts E07; Obsidian optional conflict-file mode E08 | Configuration and file-type scope differ; not a universal detection or no-loss guarantee |
| CAND-0004 — decide intended content | Documented manual comparison/recovery E07/E08 | Provenance, accessible interaction and recoverable resolution transaction remain proposed |
| Separate device-loss recovery | Obsidian backup distinction E11/E12 | No restore drill or recovery-point guarantee was executed in this research |
These are separate products and modes, not a prescription to combine them. An
automatic merge may be preferable when domain semantics justify it. The
[authority/projection comparison](../research/reviews/AuthorityProjectionComparison.md)
explains why local availability, replica convergence and accepted domain meaning
must remain distinct. Choose and fault-test a specific storage/receiver pair before
promising the sequence's durability and retry behavior.

18
technologies/TransactionalRecovery.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
# Transactional recovery: mechanism mappings
0.1 research preview. These map previously reviewed mechanisms to candidate decisions,
not complete, interchangeable product implementations. No new source verification was
performed for this mapping; dates and revisions are those in the linked reviews.
[Transactional sequence](../sequences/TransactionalApplication.md).
| Decision | Located mechanism and provenance | What still needs verification |
| --- | --- | --- |
| CAND-0005 — retain unfinished intent | Zulip and Element composer draft paths, pinned source R01/R03 in [FrontendRecoveryImplementations](../research/reviews/FrontendRecoveryImplementations.md) | Complete base/draft/current merge, retention policy, restart and composer-to-operation handoff |
| CAND-0006 — reject a stale proposal | Kubernetes conditional PUT, T01 in [TransactionalEvidenceExpansion](../research/reviews/TransactionalEvidenceExpansion.md); GitLab optional file precondition T02 has different failure semantics | Actual endpoint atomicity and domain checks; do not treat every GitLab 400 as version rejection |
| CAND-0007 — resolve uncertain outcome | Stripe bounded replay identity T03; Element/Matrix echo/retry source R04–R06; [Matrix SDK observation](../research/reviews/MatrixRecoveryExperiment.md) uses synthetic transport | Receiver retention/identity scope, lookup, true server deduplication, cancellation/compensation; these mechanisms are not one assembled stack |
| CAND-0008 — refresh after acceptance | React Router revalidation and concurrency guidance T04/T05 in the transactional review | Read-after-write, obsolescence and preserved drafts in the actual application; client cancellation does not stop server effects |
Select a mechanism only after the application's acceptance and failure contracts are
known. These examples do not require Kubernetes, Stripe or a particular UI framework;
they illustrate different obligations. Combining them is a proposed design, not a
known deployed use. Full-contract recurrence remains unassessed.