Sylvain Duchesne
0eb25286c8
Deux mouvements de surface, aucun changement de comportement. **`packages/client` → `packages/sdk`, `@ng-eventually/client` → `@ng-eventually/sdk`.** « client » ne disait rien : ce paquet EST le SDK que l'application appelle, et c'est tout ce qu'elle appelle. L'ancien nom reste comme mot-clé de recherche dans `docs/source-layout-by-fate.md` et le tableau des paquets du README. **Une seule entrée.** L'entrée `./polyfill` disparaît ; ses symboles applicatifs — `configure`, `configureStoreRegistry`, `setCurrentUser`, `connectedUser` et leurs types — vivent dans un bloc `POLYFILL-ERA` de `src/index.ts`. Ce que la seconde porte portait mérite d'être nommé avant d'être retiré : *ce qu'on importe de ce chemin est exactement ce qu'on supprimera à la migration*. Une seule porte perd ce signal — rien à la ligne d'import ne distingue `configure`, qui part, de `docs`, que le vrai SDK remplace sur place. Trois choses le portent désormais : le bloc lui-même, l'inventaire d'exports de `docs/api-contract.md` (épinglé par `test/vocabulary.test.ts`, donc il ne peut pas rancir en silence), et le contrôle de vocabulaire sur les noms publiés. **Six symboles quittent la surface au passage**, et la fusion est ce qui a rendu le choix visible plutôt qu'hérité : - `getConfig` / `getStoreRegistryDeps` — câblage interne, atteint par `shared-wallet/bootstrap` ; - `resetConfig` / `resetStoreRegistry` / `resetCaps` — remises à zéro de test, atteintes par leur chemin interne, ce qui est leur raison d'être ; - le `share` direct — `inbox.share` a toujours été la même fonction, et la publier deux fois brouillait la frontière qu'elle servait à marquer. Corrections d'affirmations fausses trouvées en chemin : le contrat annonçait `isNuri` / `hasReadCap` sur la porte SDK alors qu'ils ne sont plus exportés depuis le passage au permissif en entrée (`NuriLike` validé à la porte) ; le README du paquet documentait `capFor`, `shareCap`, `getCaps` et `publishRepoLink`, dont aucun n'existe ; et le README de l'app d'exemple affirmait que la suite e2e la pilote, ce qui reste à faire. 179 tests unitaires, typecheck bibliothèque / exemple / harnais, e2e 42/42 contre le broker en ligne — mesuré une fois après le renommage, une fois après la fusion.
35 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
35 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
# Vision & principles of the `@ng-eventually/sdk` polyfill
|
|
|
|
## Purpose
|
|
|
|
A **stand-in faithful in SHAPE** to NextGraph's future primitives. **Single** objective: that consumers (Festipod) be **coded against the CORRECT mental model** — the one of finished NextGraph — and have **NOTHING to rewrite** when NextGraph provides the real primitives.
|
|
|
|
## What the polyfill is NOT
|
|
|
|
A **security** layer. The **shared wallet** (everyone shares the same keys) plus the absence of real crypto make the emulation **infinitely less secure** than a wallet-per-user — it is a **dev/staging vehicle**, not a goal. **Insecurity is ACCEPTED.** An attacker who bypasses the emulation is not our problem.
|
|
|
|
## The only criterion: shape-fidelity, with RIGOR
|
|
|
|
The **exposed surfaces** must match the **exact SHAPE** of the future primitives, **even where enforcement is simulated**. The **failure mode to avoid**: exposing the **wrong shape** → the consumer codes against a model that will not exist → rewrite. The **ACL** inversion of ReadCaps was exactly that defect (an ACL where the real thing is **key possession**) — a lack of rigor.
|
|
|
|
## Simulating crypto to PREVENT shortcuts
|
|
|
|
Without a minimum of crypto simulation, damaging shortcuts get taken (reading the plaintext, falling back on ACLs). The polyfill therefore **simulates** the final mechanism, enough to hold this **invariant**:
|
|
|
|
> **A `did` (bare id, WITHOUT a ReadCap) and a NURI (WITH a ReadCap) are treated GENUINELY differently: the former does NOT allow reading the data; the latter is SUFFICIENT and REQUIRED.**
|
|
|
|
Concretely, **in the target**: a document's data is **stored encrypted** (per-doc symmetric encryption, however lightweight); the **ReadCap = the key**; without it, **decrypting/reading is impossible**. No ACL, no plaintext accessible "on the side". Obtaining read access = **holding the key**, exactly as in the target model.
|
|
|
|
> **Not yet true here, and saying so matters.** The shape is in place — possession decides, every access is confined to the connected virtual user, caps are stored and read back — but the cap value is the constant `OK` and nothing is encrypted. Per-document encryption is **P1b**, and it is one function (`nuri.ts` `mintCap`). Until it lands, nothing this library does may be described as anonymous or private.
|
|
|
|
## Shape consequences (to respect everywhere)
|
|
|
|
- **Everything is keys and URLs.** There is **no** notion of membership, role, or authorization list in the model: only symmetric and asymmetric cryptography, URIs, and who holds which key. Any exposed shape that looks like an ACL, a `member`, a `role`, or a `permission` is a **wrong shape**, whatever scaffolding one may otherwise read in the current state of NextGraph.
|
|
- **Reading = possession of the read key** (ReadCap = `{id, key}`). A bare id (a `did` without a ReadCap) does not read.
|
|
- **Writing = possession of the write key** — a key **distinct** from the read key, hence a distinct axis, but **possession too**.
|
|
- **Sharing a cap = sealing it to a recipient** (**durable** delivery, at share time — NOT an ACL re-declared every session).
|
|
- **Revocation = re-key** (new key; former holders keep the old state). Non-retroactive.
|
|
- **Cap-less reference** (naming/pointing without reading) **distinct** from the cap-bearing reference.
|
|
|
|
See `readcap-and-nuri-model.md` (the real model, verified in `nextgraph-rs`) and `briefs/2026-07-20-caps-emulation-alignment.md` (the alignment effort).
|