Disposition Record · Round 2: community#24 (5 comments → v0.15)
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Feedback source | omdsh-dev/community#24 (v0.1 final draft + third-round 5 comments) |
| Disposition version | v0.15 |
| Status | Archived |
Rule: new comments never silently rewrite a Draft — changes go through RFC review first, then get registered in this directory. Disposition categories: Adopted / Adopted with limits / Separate RFC / Adapter experiment / Not portable core / Recorded.
| Input (author) | Disposition | Landing spot |
|---|---|---|
| The kernel should be a domain-agnostic meta-protocol; contracts should be pluggable and independently versioned, avoiding frequent re-releases of a centralized SDK (Yan-Zero, with the dsh-std exploration) | Adopted | Principle ⑦; meta-protocol kernel rework (spec/negotiation.md); contracts versioned independently (VERSIONING.md) |
| Introduce Facets and Scoped Context to specify multi-platform plugin shapes (Yan-Zero, with the dsh-codex refactoring proof) | Direction adopted, scope narrowed | The four-level object model enters the standard vocabulary (spec/facet-model.md); v0.15 only specifies host; the reserved names client / worker belong to RFC 0002 |
Message content should align with MCP ContentBlock to avoid information loss and serialization overhead (morlay) | Adopted | spec/event-envelope.md; the exact field boundary is listed in the v0.15 §9 consultation |
| URL query state persistence/restore (Grafana-dashboard-style, coping with random desktop ports) (morlay) | Adopted with limits | Belongs to the Web Presentation capability (working name x-web.panel.urlState), with a field whitelist, size caps, per-plugin isolation, and no secrets; does not enter the core and is not imposed on TUI / headless hosts (per Qiuner's suggestion) |
| RFC 0003 (inter-plugin service composition) stays the highest priority of the next phase (Qiuner) | Adopted | Review starts in Phase 3; provider cardinality, selection, conflict plans, health, and replacement are its must-answer questions (RFC 0003) |
| Repeated emphasis that the reference implementation is not the standard (Qiuner) | Adopted | Promoted from an acceptance criterion to principle ⑧ |
| TUI signs up for the first batch of standard-compatible hosts and tests (T-Auto) | Adopted | v0.15 §4.4 acceptance evidence; Phase 2 (spec/conformance.md) |
Table note: Issue #24 actually has 5 comments, but this table has 7 rows — one comment from Yan-Zero contains two suggestions (meta-protocol kernel, Facets), and one comment from Qiuner contains three (RFC 0003 priority, URL query ownership, reference-implementation positioning); each is registered suggestion by suggestion.