You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
RFP: replicas, declared bidirectional replication over the transmit family #50
Give bidirectional replication a first-class surface: two runtimes declare a replica pair, each stages transmits for the operations the other mirrors, and each ingests the other's envelopes. The transmit family (#47, #48, shipped in #49 with the engine route) provides the mechanism; this proposal names the missing declaration. This is the feature that earns the "replica" name.
Why this is deferred
Wiring register_transmit at both ends of a pair already works today, but only for one direction at a time. Point both directions at each other and the pair loops: an ingested operation applies through an internal message, the actor's operation stages a transmit unconditionally, and the mirrored apply transmits straight back. Echo suppression is the design problem, and it deserves its own review rather than a rider on #49.
Design questions
Echo suppression. A plausible default: Actor#transmit stages nothing when the current turn applies a message whose idempotency key carries the transmit: prefix, so a replayed operation never re-transmits. A multi-hop topology (A → B → C) then needs an explicit forwarding override, because suppression at B would stop the chain.
Declaration API. What form earns the name: a class-level replicate_to on the actor, or a runtime-level pairing that wires register_transmit, the engine route policy, and the resolver in one declaration?
Identity. A replica pair needs a bijective actor type mapping. The current resolve_actor_type / transmission_actor_type_resolver are one-way; a pair declaration should derive both directions from one mapping.
Conflict posture. Per-actor ordered replay gives last-writer-wins in arrival order. Document single-writer-per-actor as the supported convention first; divergence detection (periodic state digest exchange) is a separate follow-up.
Wire contract. Loop prevention across more than two runtimes likely needs an origin field in the envelope. That is a contract revision, so it lands in compatibility/transmit-envelopes.json and both runtimes together.
Plan
Prototype the echo suppression rule behind the existing transmit tests, and prove a two-runtime pair converges instead of looping.
Settle the declaration API against a real pair (the Rails QA app and a Node runtime already exercise both directions one way at a time).
Revise the fixture file if origin lands, with consuming tests in both repositories.
Documentation, roadmap, parity ledger, both changelogs, both suites green.
References
#47, #48, the shipped transmit family and engine route in #49, and solid-objects-js#17 / solid-objects-js#18.
You can trace the loop in the code. Transmission.receive enqueues the mirrored operation with an idempotency key of IDEMPOTENCY_PREFIX plus the effectId. The handler then runs, and the dispatcher in Actor#transmit calls emit(Transmission::EFFECT_NAME, ...) unconditionally, so the envelope goes straight back.
I'd take only step 1 of the plan as a scoped first PR: echo suppression keyed on the transmit: prefix, with no declaration API and no envelope change. I'd start with a failing test in the style of transmit_staging_test.rb, where two actor types transmit to each other and the ingesting side must stage nothing. Questions 2–5 stay with you.
One thing to settle first: should suppression live in Actor#transmit or at staging time? The increment_mirror fixture calls emit "solid-objects.transmit" directly, so a check inside transmit would never see it.
Could you assign me? The PR would be up within 1–2 days.
Activity
sharmis-tp commentedon Oct 27, 2026
You can trace the loop in the code.
Transmission.receiveenqueues the mirrored operation with an idempotency key ofIDEMPOTENCY_PREFIXplus theeffectId. The handler then runs, and the dispatcher inActor#transmitcallsemit(Transmission::EFFECT_NAME, ...)unconditionally, so the envelope goes straight back.I'd take only step 1 of the plan as a scoped first PR: echo suppression keyed on the
transmit:prefix, with no declaration API and no envelope change. I'd start with a failing test in the style oftransmit_staging_test.rb, where two actor types transmit to each other and the ingesting side must stage nothing. Questions 2–5 stay with you.One thing to settle first: should suppression live in
Actor#transmitor at staging time? Theincrement_mirrorfixture callsemit "solid-objects.transmit"directly, so a check insidetransmitwould never see it.Could you assign me? The PR would be up within 1–2 days.