jpmschweitzerandClaude
4d515ce51e
Adopt settled-reach's Q&D record convention. Confirmed decisions live under decisions/<domain>.md as D-NNN; open questions under questions-<domain>.md as Q-NNN; rejected alternatives in rejected.md as R-NNN. Markdown is source of truth; .pql/pql.db (added later) is a query index. Backlog captured from the Tier-0 Flutter planning sessions: bare WidgetsApp, theme pipeline, kernel admission rule, feature-first layout, a11y + i18n as Tier-0 contracts, test pyramid, kanban over Scrum, pql-owns-planning, Python stopgap sunset clause. ADR migration (D-001, D-003-D-006 confirmed, R-002 rejected) is staged for the next commit so the diff stays readable. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
26 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
26 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
# Open Questions — Extensions
|
|
|
|
Extension API shape, Lua runtime vendoring, manifest schema version.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Q-008: Extension API shape — widgets, subcommands, both?
|
|
- **Status:** Open
|
|
- **Question:** Should extensions contribute widgets (panels, tabs, status-bar items), subcommands (CLI verbs), or both? Both is the obvious answer but has a cost in API surface that must be designed carefully to satisfy user/Claude parity ([D-006](architecture.md)).
|
|
- **Context:** CLAUDE.md flags this as "decide during Tier 6." `builtin.*` stubs today contribute widgets + commands + keybindings; the third-party Lua contract has to match.
|
|
- **Source:** CLAUDE.md "Open questions" footer.
|
|
|
|
### Q-009: Lua runtime vendoring
|
|
- **Status:** Open
|
|
- **Question:** Does the Lua supporter tool ([D-019](extensions.md#d-019-lua-runtime-as-ptyc-peer-supporter-tool)) bundle liblua source (build with the binary) or link system liblua (smaller binary, fragile ABI)?
|
|
- **Context:** `ptyc` has no deps; Lua is different — it's a whole VM. Bundling is the straightforward choice but locks a Lua version per clide release.
|
|
- **Source:** 2026-04-21 planning.
|
|
|
|
### Q-010: Extension manifest `schema_version:`
|
|
- **Status:** Open
|
|
- **Question:** What's the manifest schema-version scheme and bump policy? Coupled with [Q-005](questions-architecture.md#q-005-ipc-wire-format-stability) (IPC wire format) — both want a versioning story.
|
|
- **Context:** Today's manifests have no `schema_version:`. Adding one is cheap; the hard part is deciding when we bump.
|
|
- **Source:** 2026-04-21 planning.
|
|
|
|
---
|