tegwick
eaa1608771
history/260927-ComplexWebAppUiComponents_chatgpt.txt is a pasted AI-chat transcript on UI-integration architecture. It fails this repo's primary-source bar (unauthored, unverifiable broken citation markers), so it is screened as a leads-only document, not cataloged as a source, and never cited as evidence. Instead read the two real specs it pointed to: MDN Custom Elements (SRC-0046) and webpack Module Federation (SRC-0047). Neither defines a semantic UI capability contract (inputs/events/commands/slots) as a first-class concept; that gap motivates the new draft hypothesis, distinct from the existing Independent Feature Boundary (release cadence) and Vertical Feature Slice (source grouping) candidates. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: sonnet Assistant-Process: 290719@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 55cbe504-1bfe-4932-b761-29016523c87b
53 lines
3 KiB
Markdown
53 lines
3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
title: Capability Contract Boundary
|
||
status: draft
|
||
maturity: hypothesis
|
||
families: [composition, execution]
|
||
scales: [L4]
|
||
admission: research-candidate-only
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# Capability Contract Boundary
|
||
|
||
Context: a UI capability (e.g. a customer editor, a document viewer) is consumed by
|
||
one or more independently evolving host applications, possibly across frameworks or
|
||
teams. The host needs a stable way to configure, observe and command the capability
|
||
without depending on its internal framework, state library or rendering technology.
|
||
|
||
Proposed solution: declare the capability's public surface as an explicit, versioned
|
||
semantic contract — inputs/configuration, emitted events, invokable commands, and
|
||
host-provided presentation slots — separately from whichever runtime-isolation
|
||
mechanism (a plain package, a Custom Element, a Module Federation remote, a
|
||
micro-frontend, an iframe) carries it. The contract is the thing consumers depend on
|
||
and version against; the isolation mechanism is an implementation detail that can
|
||
change without necessarily breaking the contract.
|
||
|
||
Result: hosts can swap or upgrade a capability's implementation without renegotiating
|
||
its interface, and the interface can be reasoned about independently of deployment
|
||
topology. Declaring a contract does not by itself provide runtime isolation, dependency
|
||
negotiation or compatibility checking — those still come from whatever mechanism
|
||
implements it (see Evidence). A contract with no enforcement is only documentation.
|
||
|
||
Evidence: [source review](../reviews/CapabilityContractSources.md) CC01–CC03 locates
|
||
two real, independently documented substrate mechanisms — Custom Elements'
|
||
attribute/lifecycle callbacks (CC01) and Module Federation's expose/consume module
|
||
contract (CC02) — and establishes that neither defines a semantic capability contract
|
||
itself (CC03); one would be authored on top of either. No known use of an explicit
|
||
capability contract, as distinct from its substrate mechanisms, has been located.
|
||
Prompted by a non-primary AI-chat lead that is explicitly not cited as evidence; see
|
||
[SourceCatalog.md](../catalog/SourceCatalog.md).
|
||
|
||
Alternative: an ad hoc, framework-typed component API (e.g. React props/callbacks)
|
||
when every consumer already shares the same framework and version, making a
|
||
framework-neutral contract layer unnecessary overhead.
|
||
|
||
Proposed relations: [Independent Feature Boundary](IndependentFeatureBoundary.md)
|
||
governs release/activation cadence and may carry a capability contract without being
|
||
one; [Vertical Feature Slice](VerticalFeatureSlice.md) governs source-code grouping,
|
||
a different concern. Neither entails this pattern nor is entailed by it.
|
||
|
||
Next test: pin one real Custom Element library and one real Module Federation
|
||
example; compare what each actually enforces about a component's declared
|
||
inputs/events/commands versus what a hand-authored capability-contract layer would
|
||
need to add on top. All relations are research proposals; no canonical identity or
|
||
admitted graph edges. The next test is planned, not executed.
|