docs: ADR-48 geloescht, Bausteinsicht nachgezogen - #592
Open
hauschel wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
ADR-48 ("Die Komponenten bleiben; jeder Bounded Context wird ein Maven-Parent
ueber seinen Komponenten") is gone from the store. A non-author review against
the R0-R8 rules found the record carried four independent assertions (R1) and
that none of them survives Q1/Q2 on its own (R0): keeping the components as
they are is the status-quo pattern, the parent-per-context assignment is a
building-block view, "component = core + one adapter per technology" restates
the module schema, and the namespace half follows from ADR-12. The one
assertion that would carry a record -- a context boundary is not a hexagon
boundary -- is already the rejected option 3 of ADR-52.
The committed store review of 2026-09-08 had flagged the same thing
(docs/store-review-2026-09-08.md, R0 column: "konkrete Parent-Zuordnung ist
Bausteinsicht"); it was not acted on then.
This building-block view promises to point at the record each part rests on,
so the three places that cited ADR-48 now say what they actually rest on: the
module schema, with no record behind it. The shape they describe is unchanged,
and the implementation issues (#439, #441) stand as they are -- they never
cited the record.
docs/adr-export/ is deliberately not refreshed here: the store carries 28
writes from another session this morning, and regenerating the export would
commit that work along with this change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YZEAiSr61C5qnE6TtDoXS1
Section 3 of the review evaluation is the working instruction for accepting the PROPOSED group, not a dated protocol -- with ADR-48 gone it named a record that no longer exists and made three others depend on it. What ADR-53, ADR-54 and ADR-57 took from ADR-48 -- that a context holds more than one component -- rests on ADR-52, so their prerequisite moves there. The order stays cycle-free: 49, 52, 56, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58. Section 10 of the 2026-09-08 report keeps its ADR-48 rows as they are: it is a dated finding about the store as it stood that day. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YZEAiSr61C5qnE6TtDoXS1
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Was passiert ist
ADR-48 ("Die Komponenten bleiben; jeder Bounded Context wird ein Maven-Parent ueber seinen Komponenten", PROPOSED) ist aus dem Store geloescht. Anlass war die Frage, ob sich aus dem
decision-Text ueberhaupt genau eine Entscheidung lesen laesst.Ein Review durch einen Nicht-Autor gegen die R0-R8-Regeln von
/arknet:adr:decision-Text von ADR-48, sondern bereits als verworfene Option 3 von ADR-52.Derselbe Befund stand schon im committeten Store-Review vom 2026-09-08 (
docs/store-review-2026-09-08.md, R0-Spalte: "konkrete Parent-Zuordnung ist Bausteinsicht"), wurde damals aber nicht gezogen.Was dieser PR aendert
docs/building-block-view.mdsagt von sich, es "points at the record each part rests on". Nach der Loeschung ruhten drei Stellen auf nichts mehr. Sie sagen jetzt, worauf sie tatsaechlich ruhen: das Modulschema, ohne Record dahinter. Die beschriebene Gestalt aendert sich nicht, und die Umsetzungs-Issues #439/#441 bleiben gueltig -- sie haben den Record nie zitiert.Was dieser PR bewusst NICHT aendert
docs/adr-export/ist nicht neu erzeugt. Der Store traegt 28 Schreibvorgaenge einer anderen Sitzung von heute frueh (08:23-08:38); ein Refresh wuerde diese Arbeit mit-committen. Der Export bleibt damit vorerst ein Schnappschuss, der ADR-48 noch zeigt.Store-Seite (bereits vollzogen, nicht Teil dieses Diffs)
relatedTo-Kanten auf ADR-48 wurden vorher in ADR-49, ADR-51, ADR-52, ADR-54, ADR-57 und ADR-58 entfernt (adr_deleteverweigert sonst). Die Kanten von ADR-12, ADR-36 und ADR-56 trug ADR-48 selbst; sie sind mit ihm verschwunden.adr_checkmeldet danach 29 Records und keinen neuen Fund. Die Tombstone-Revision mitinvalidatedAtTimebleibt in der Historie (ADR-28).Offen
Ob Kontextgrenze ist nicht Hexagon-Grenze aus ADR-52s verworfener Option in dessen
decision-Text gehoben wird, ist noch nicht entschieden. ADR-52 ist PROPOSED, also aenderbar.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01YZEAiSr61C5qnE6TtDoXS1