Compare page: list xNet as a protocol; fix sync-layer framing - #299
Merged
Conversation
…ol layers Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…r framing Add xNet as a highlighted row in the Protocols & P2P primitives layer of /compare — it ships a written, conformance-tested protocol (data model · replication · authorization), the same altitude as AT Protocol and Matrix, which the home page already benchmarks against. Adds an xnet-kernel footnote (signed hash-chained LWW change log; federation noted as roadmap) and upgrades the layer note to state xNet is both a consumer of primitives and a provider. Rewrite the Sync engines & embedded databases intro so the 'own-store' projects already in the table (Turso, Ditto) no longer contradict the framing: the exclusion criterion is 'not a drop-in sync layer under an existing app', not 'brings its own store'.
Contributor
|
Preview removed for PR #299. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What
Implements
docs/explorations/0236_[x]_COMPARE_PAGE_XNET_PLACEMENT_IN_SYNC_AND_PROTOCOL_LAYERS.md.Answers the question "shouldn't xNet be listed under sync engines and protocols on the compare page?" — and the answer turned out to be yes for Protocols, and the Sync note was wrong and needed fixing.
Protocols & P2P primitives layer
OpenProtocolsection ("an open protocol… like Matrix or the AT Protocol"). The compare page had been silently omitting xNet, contradicting our own marketing.xnet-kernelfootnote (signed, hash-chained LWW change log; reference Python kernel + conformance corpus; hub-to-hub federation noted as roadmap, not shipped).Sync engines & embedded databases layer
Substrates layer
Decisions
MIT/pre-release(all xNet packages + repo are MIT; corrected the exploration's placeholderMIT / Apache-2.0).highlight: truefor consistency with the other "this is xNet" rows; the upgraded note keeps it from over-claiming.Verification
pnpm --filter site validate:compare→compare.ts OK: 5 layers, 44 rows, 35 chips(+1 row).pnpm --filter site build→ 93 pages built; rendered/compareHTML contains the xNet protocols row (App + data protocol,Signed, hash-chained LWW change log), the footnote, and the corrected sync note (no more "doesn't compete here").site/data isn't in any vitest project).🤖 Generated with Claude Code