docs: state the layer openblox occupies and the rule that bounds it - #35
docs: state the layer openblox occupies and the rule that bounds it#35Lutherwaves wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
The non-goals were already written down, but as a list of things openblox happens not to do. Nothing said which layer it occupies or why the list has that shape, so every item read as a gap someone might later fill. State the position: openblox is the layer below a sandbox platform, and one rule decides what belongs in it — how a sandbox is isolated is openblox's problem, which sandbox runs where is the caller's. Every non-goal is that rule applied, which is what makes it cheap to decline a request without relitigating the scope each time. Also makes the two-tier guarantee explicit where the defaults are described: the library makes weakening visible, openbloxd makes it unreachable. That distinction was only stated in passing.
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 59 minutes Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits within each organization. For paid Pro and Pro+ reviews, CodeRabbit uses a developer's included PR review attempts over the past 7 days to set the current hourly allowance. At typical activity levels, the full plan allowance applies. Higher sustained activity can lower the allowance until earlier attempts leave the 7-day window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
1 participant
The non-goals were already written down. What was missing is why the list has
that shape.
ARCHITECTURE.mdlisted five things openblox does not do;README.mdlistedfour. Read cold, each item looks like a gap someone might later fill, so every
feature request gets to argue against one bullet on its own merits — and
individually, most of those arguments are reasonable. That is the shape a scope
erodes in.
The rule
Isolation is the runtime, the egress policy, the filesystem, the user, the
capabilities, the resource caps and the lifetime bounds. Placement is
scheduling, queueing, tenancy, metering, fleet membership and snapshots.
Every existing non-goal is that one rule applied, rather than a separate
opinion. Stating it lets a request be declined by pointing at it, without
relitigating the scope each time.
Where openblox sits
Also missing was the positive claim. openblox is the layer below a sandbox
platform, not a smaller one — the absence of a control plane is what makes it
composable, not something a user has to work around. The comparison is
libvirt, not OpenStack: consumed by platforms, outlived the platforms, neverbecame one.
The two-tier guarantee, said once, plainly
The strongest claim in the README was in its fourteenth paragraph. It now sits
next to the defaults it qualifies, and distinguishes two things that were
running together:
relaxation is explicit and greppable at the call site — weakening is
visible.
openbloxd, the choice is not the caller's at all. Profiles livein the daemon's config and no request can reach them; a caller names a
profile, never an image, runtime, user, egress policy or resource cap —
weakening is unreachable.
The library cannot claim the second, since
WithImagetakes caller input bydesign. Saying so is what makes the daemon's claim credible.
Changes
README.mdARCHITECTURE.mdCONTRIBUTING.mddocs/index.mdDocumentation only. No code, no behaviour, no API.
docs:cuts no release.