Files

narawat 6171923c05 update

2026-05-22 08:51:47 +07:00

21 KiB

Raw Blame History

Solution Design: msghandler

Version: 1.3.0
Date: 2026-05-22
Status: Active
Ground Truth: src/msghandler.jl ASG Framework Alignment: v8 pillars - Requirements → Solution Design → Specification → Walkthrough → Implementation Plan → Validation → Runbook

1. Problem Decomposition

msghandler addresses the challenge of cross-platform data exchange between Julia, JavaScript, Python, Dart, Rust, and MicroPython applications using message brokers as transport layers.

User Problems

Problem	Description	User Impact	Requirement ID
P-001: Cross-platform data serialization	Different languages have incompatible data types and serialization formats	Developers must write platform-specific conversion code	FR-001, FR-002
P-002: Large payload handling	Message brokers have size limits, but large files need to be transferred	Large files either fail or require complex workarounds	FR-003
P-003: Transport abstraction	Each platform has different message broker libraries and APIs	No unified interface across platforms	FR-013, FR-014
P-004: Request-response patterns	Bi-directional communication requires complex correlation tracking	Developers must implement custom message routing	FR-011
P-005: File server reliability	File server may be temporarily unavailable during downloads	Failed downloads without retry mechanism	FR-010
P-006: Payload type preservation	Different platforms have different type systems	Data corruption or misinterpretation on receiving end	FR-006, FR-007

Solution Boundaries

In Scope:

Unified API for smartpack() and smartunpack() across all platforms
Automatic transport selection based on payload size
File server integration using Claim-Check pattern
Multi-payload support with mixed types in single message
Exponential backoff for reliable file downloads
Correlation ID propagation for message tracing

Out of Scope:

Message compression (adds complexity without clear benefit)
Message encryption (application-layer concern)
Advanced message routing (simple topic matching sufficient)
Persistent message queues (transport pattern sufficient)

Decision IDs

Decision ID	Decision	Description	Requirement IDs	NFR IDs
SD-001	Claim-Check Pattern	Large payloads uploaded to HTTP server, small payloads sent directly	FR-003, FR-004	NFR-104, NFR-105
SD-002	Automatic Transport Selection	<0.5MB = direct, ≥0.5MB = link based on size threshold	FR-003, FR-004	NFR-104, NFR-105
SD-003	Handler Function Abstraction	Pluggable file server implementations via handler functions	FR-008, FR-009	NFR-202
SD-004	Unified Tuple Format	Same `(dataname, data, type)` format across all platforms	FR-006, FR-007	-
SD-005	Base64 Encoding	JSON-compatible binary data transport	FR-012	-
SD-006	Transport Abstraction	Support multiple broker protocols (NATS/MQTT/WebSocket) transparently	FR-013, FR-014	NFR-201
SD-007	Exponential Backoff	Retry failed file downloads with exponential backoff	FR-010	NFR-202
SD-008	Correlation ID Propagation	Propagate correlation IDs through all message processing steps	FR-011	NFR-401, NFR-403

2. Solution Approach

msghandler implements a Claim-Check pattern with intelligent transport selection:

Sender (smartpack)              Transport Layer              Receiver (smartunpack)
┌─────────────────┐             ┌───────────────┐            ┌───────────────────┐
│                 │             │               │            │                   │
│ 1. Data tuples  │────────────>│               │───────────>│ 1. Parse envelope │
│    [(name,      │   JSON      │  Message      │   JSON     │ 2. Check transport│
│     data, type)]│   format    │  Broker       │   format   │ 3. Fetch/Decode   │
│                 │             │  (NATS/MQTT/  │            │ 4. Return tuples  │
└─────────────────┘             │  WebSocket)   │            │                   │
                                │               │            └───────────────────┘
                                └───────────────┘

Key Design Decisions

Decision ID	Decision	Rationale	Alternatives Rejected
SD-001	Claim-Check Pattern	Large payloads (>0.5MB) uploaded to HTTP server, small payloads sent directly via transport	Client-side compression - adds complexity; Server-side compression - not universally supported
SD-002	Automatic Transport Selection	<0.5MB = direct (fast), ≥0.5MB = link (avoid transport limits)	Manual selection - error-prone; Fixed threshold - not adaptive
SD-003	Handler Function Abstraction	Allows pluggable file server implementations (Plik, AWS S3, custom)	Hardcoded Plik - not flexible; Interface-based - too complex for this use case
SD-004	Unified Tuple Format	Same input/output format across all platforms	Platform-native formats - no interoperability; Protocol buffers - too heavy
SD-005	Base64 Encoding	JSON-compatible binary data transport	Raw bytes - not JSON-compatible; Hex encoding - 2x size overhead
SD-006	Transport Abstraction	Support multiple broker protocols (NATS/MQTT/WebSocket) transparently	Platform-specific libraries - no interoperability
SD-007	Exponential Backoff	Retry failed file downloads with exponential backoff	Simple retry - too aggressive; No retry - poor reliability
SD-008	Correlation ID Propagation	Propagate correlation IDs through all message processing steps	Manual correlation - error-prone; No tracing - debug impossible

Architecture Components

flowchart TB
    subgraph Client["Client Application"]
        direction TB
        APP["Application Code"]
        API["msghandler API"]
        
        APP -->|Data tuples| API
        API -->|JSON envelope| TRANSPORT
    end
    
    subgraph Transport["Transport Layer"]
        direction TB
        BROKER["Message Broker<br/>NATS/MQTT/WebSocket"]
        TOPICS["Topic Subscription"]
        
        API -->|Publish| BROKER
        BROKER -->|Deliver| TOPICS
        TOPICS -->|Subscribe| API
    end
    
    subgraph FileServer["File Server"]
        direction TB
        UPLOAD["Upload Handler"]
        DOWNLOAD["Download Handler"]
        
        API -.->|Upload URL| UPLOAD
        DOWNLOAD -.->|Fetch URL| API
    end
    
    style Client fill:#e1f5fe,stroke:#0288d1,stroke-width:2px
    style Transport fill:#ffe0b2,stroke:#f57c00,stroke-width:2px
    style FileServer fill:#c8e6c9,stroke:#43a047,stroke-width:2px

3. Alternatives Considered

Alternative	Pros	Cons	Decision
gRPC/Protobuf	Strong typing, efficient binary format	No native MicroPython support; Complex schema management	Rejected - not cross-platform enough
MessagePack	Compact binary, good performance	Browser support limited; No standard for tabular data	Rejected - missing Arrow IPC alternative
Protocol Buffers	Type-safe, efficient	No native support for tabular data exchange	Rejected - cannot represent DataFrames natively
REST HTTP Upload	Simple, universal	High latency; No real-time capability	Rejected - not suitable for message broker pattern
Hybrid (direct/link)	Optimal for both small and large payloads	More complex implementation	Accepted - matches user requirements (FR-003, FR-004)
Single transport type	Simpler implementation	Cannot handle large payloads efficiently	Rejected - violates FR-003 requirement
Platform-specific APIs	Native performance	No interoperability; Maintenance burden	Rejected - violates cross-platform goal

4. High-Level Component Diagram

flowchart TD
    subgraph msghandler["msghandler Core Module"]
        direction TB
        
        subgraph Serialization["Serialization Layer"]
            DIR["Direct Transport"]
            LNK["Link Transport"]
            
            DIR -->|Base64| JSON_MSG
            LNK -->|HTTP URL| JSON_MSG
        end
        
        subgraph Envelope["Envelope Builder"]
            HDR["Message Header"]
            PAY["Payload Manager"]
            
            HDR --> PAY
        end
        
        subgraph Handlers["Handler Functions"]
            UPD["Upload Handler"]
            DWN["Download Handler"]
            
            UPD --> LNK
            DWN --> LNK
        end
        
        API["smartpack() / smartunpack()"]
        
        API -->|Input| Serialization
        API -->|Output| Serialization
        API -->|Configure| Handlers
    end
    
    subgraph Transport["Transport Layer"]
        BROKER["NATS / MQTT / WebSocket"]
        API -->|JSON| BROKER
        BROKER -->|JSON| API
    end
    
    subgraph FileServer["File Server"]
        Plik["HTTP Server"]
        UPD -.->|POST| Plik
        Plik -.->|URL| DWN
    end
    
    style msghandler fill:#b3e5fc,stroke:#0288d1,stroke-width:2px
    style Transport fill:#ffe0b2,stroke:#f57c00,stroke-width:2px
    style FileServer fill:#c8e6c9,stroke:#43a047,stroke-width:2px

Component Responsibilities

Component	Responsibilities	Decision IDs	Requirements Addressed
Serialization Layer	Convert data types to transport format (Base64/URL)	SD-005	FR-001, FR-002, FR-012
Envelope Builder	Create standardized message envelope with metadata	SD-001, SD-008	FR-011, FR-013, FR-014
Handler Functions	Abstract file server operations for pluggability	SD-003, SD-007	FR-008, FR-009, FR-010
Transport Adapter	Support multiple broker protocols transparently	SD-006	FR-013, FR-014
Payload Manager	Track payload types, sizes, and encoding	SD-004	FR-006, FR-007

5. Decision Rationale

SD-001: Why Claim-Check Pattern?

Requirement: FR-003 (Large file handling), FR-004 (Direct transport for small payloads) NFRs: NFR-104 (File upload latency <1s), NFR-105 (File download latency <1s)

Rationale:

Transport layers (NATS, MQTT) have message size limits (typically 1MB)
Direct transport is faster for small payloads (no file server round-trip)
Link transport avoids transport limits for large payloads
User doesn't need to manually choose - automatic selection based on threshold

SD-002: Why Handler Functions for File Server?

Requirement: FR-008 (Plik integration), FR-009 (Custom file server support) NFR: NFR-202 (File server availability <5% failure rate)

Rationale:

Plik is common open-source solution for file server
Some users need AWS S3 or custom implementation
Handler functions provide clean abstraction without vendor lock-in
Same signature across all platforms (unified API)

SD-003: Why Tuple Format for Payloads?

Requirement: FR-006 (Multi-payload messages), FR-007 (Payload type preservation)

Rationale:

(dataname, data, type) tuple is language-agnostic
Simple to understand: name, content, type
Supports mixed payload types in single message
Easy to serialize/deserialize across platforms

SD-004: Why Base64 Encoding?

Requirement: FR-012 (Message serialization), FR-001 (Cross-platform text messaging)

Rationale:

JSON is universal - works on all platforms
Base64 converts binary to ASCII for JSON compatibility
Standard format with native support in all languages
No additional dependencies needed

SD-005: Why Automatic Transport Selection?

Requirement: FR-003 (Large file handling), FR-004 (Direct transport for small payloads) NFRs: NFR-104 (File upload latency <1s), NFR-105 (File download latency <1s)

Rationale:

<0.5MB payloads use direct transport (<1s latency, FR-004 KPI)
≥0.5MB payloads use link transport to avoid transport limits (FR-003 KPI: 99% successful uploads)
User doesn't need to manually choose - automatic selection based on threshold

SD-006: Why Transport Abstraction?

Requirement: FR-013 (Transport publishing), FR-014 (Transport subscription) NFR: NFR-201 (Message delivery at-least-once)

Rationale:

Support multiple broker protocols (NATS, MQTT, WebSocket) transparently
Caller handles actual transport publishing/subscription
Unified API across all platforms
At-least-once delivery semantics via transport layer

SD-007: Why Exponential Backoff?

Requirement: FR-010 (Exponential backoff retry) NFR: NFR-202 (File server availability <5% failure rate)

Rationale:

File server may be temporarily unavailable
Exponential backoff prevents overwhelming server during outages
Default: 5 retries, 100ms base delay, 5000ms max delay
95% successful downloads within retry limit (FR-010 KPI)

SD-008: Why Correlation ID Propagation?

Requirement: FR-011 (Correlation ID propagation) NFRs: NFR-401 (Required logs), NFR-403 (Tracing)

Rationale:

Trace messages across distributed systems
Correlation ID logged with every message (NFR-401)
Propagated through all message processing steps (NFR-403)
Enables debugging and performance analysis in production

6. Risk Assessment

Risk	Impact	Probability	Mitigation	Requirement IDs	NFR IDs
Performance degradation with >500KB payloads	High	Medium	Size threshold detection; Link transport fallback	FR-003, FR-004	NFR-104, NFR-105
File server availability issues	Medium	Low	Exponential backoff retry; Graceful degradation	FR-010	NFR-202
Platform-specific bugs	Medium	Low	Comprehensive test suite per platform; CI validation	FR-001, FR-002, FR-006, FR-007	-
Encoding mismatches between platforms	High	Low	Strict specification; Test contracts; Validation rules	FR-012	NFR-301
Transport layer incompatibility	Medium	Low	Transport-agnostic design; Handler abstraction	FR-013, FR-014	NFR-201
Correlation ID loss in processing	Medium	Low	Centralized trace context management	FR-011	NFR-401, NFR-403

7. Requirements Traceability

Solution Component	Decision ID	Requirement ID	Description
smartpack() function	SD-001, SD-002, SD-004, SD-005, SD-006, SD-008	FR-001, FR-002, FR-003, FR-004, FR-005, FR-006, FR-007, FR-008, FR-009, FR-010, FR-011, FR-012, FR-013, FR-014	Unified API for sending messages across all platforms
smartunpack() function	SD-001, SD-002, SD-004, SD-005, SD-006, SD-007, SD-008	FR-001, FR-002, FR-003, FR-004, FR-005, FR-006, FR-007, FR-008, FR-009, FR-010, FR-011, FR-012, FR-013, FR-014	Unified API for receiving messages across all platforms
Direct transport	SD-002	FR-004	Send payloads < threshold directly via transport
Link transport	SD-001, SD-002	FR-003	Upload payloads ≥ threshold to file server
File server handler	SD-003, SD-007	FR-008, FR-009, FR-010	Pluggable upload/download handlers with retry logic
Payload type preservation	SD-004	FR-006, FR-007	Support text, dictionary, arrowtable, jsontable, image, audio, video, binary
Correlation ID propagation	SD-008	FR-011	Message tracing across distributed systems
Multi-payload support	SD-004	FR-006, FR-007	List of (dataname, data, type) tuples

Non-Functional Requirements Traceability

Solution Component	Decision ID	NFR ID	Description
Serialization optimization	SD-005	NFR-101, NFR-102	<50ms overhead for 10KB payloads
Transport efficiency	SD-006	NFR-103	<100ms connection establishment
File server latency	SD-001, SD-002	NFR-104, NFR-105	<1s upload/download for 0.5MB files
Concurrent connections	SD-006	NFR-106	Support 100+ simultaneous connections
Message throughput	SD-005, SD-006	NFR-107	Handle 1000+ messages/second per instance
At-least-once delivery	SD-006	NFR-201	Transport layer semantics
Graceful degradation	SD-003, SD-007	NFR-202	File server unavailability handling
Auto-reconnect	SD-006	NFR-203	Transport connection failure recovery
Payload integrity	SD-005	NFR-301	100% SHA-256 checksum validation
Transport security	SD-006	NFR-302	100% TLS connections in production
File server security	SD-003	NFR-303	100% authenticated file uploads
Required logs	SD-001, SD-008	NFR-401	Correlation ID, msg_id, timestamp, etc.
Critical metrics	SD-001, SD-005	NFR-402	messages_sent_total, file upload/download duration
Tracing	SD-001, SD-008	NFR-403	Correlation ID propagation
Alerting	SD-007	NFR-404	<5min alert latency for `download_retry_exceeded`

8. Gap-Check Validation

Stage Transition	Gap-Check Question	Status
Requirements → Solution Design	Does the Solution Design clearly explain how the system solves the user problem, not just what it does?	✅ Verified - All user problems mapped to solution components with requirement ID and decision ID references
Solution Design → Specification	Does the Specification define all technical details that the solution approach requires?	⏳ Pending - Specification needs review for completeness
Solution Design → Walkthrough	Does the Walkthrough reflect the complete flow including error states and timing?	⏳ Pending - Walkthrough needs validation against design

Solution Design Validation

User Problems (from requirements.md):

P-001: Cross-platform data serialization (FR-001, FR-002)
P-002: Large payload handling (FR-003)
P-003: Transport abstraction (FR-013, FR-014)
P-004: Request-response patterns (FR-011)
P-005: File server reliability (FR-010)
P-006: Payload type preservation (FR-006, FR-007)

Solution Components:

SD-001 - smartpack() / smartunpack() - Unified API for all platforms
SD-002 - Claim-Check pattern - Automatic transport selection based on size threshold
SD-003 - Handler function abstraction - Plik/AWS S3/custom file server support
SD-004 - Tuple format - (dataname, data, type) - platform-agnostic
SD-005 - Base64 encoding - JSON-compatible binary data transport
SD-006 - Transport abstraction - Support multiple broker protocols transparently
SD-007 - Exponential backoff - Reliable file downloads with retry logic
SD-008 - Correlation ID propagation - Message tracing across distributed systems

Requirement Mapping:

Functional Requirements: FR-001 through FR-014 ✅
Non-Functional Requirements: NFR-101 through NFR-405 ✅

Gap Check: Does this solution explain how users will actually use the system?

Answer: Yes - the walkthrough provides concrete examples:

JavaScript sends [(msg, "Hello", "text"), (avatar, binary_data, "image")]
smartpack() automatically selects transport based on size (SD-002)
Large file (≥0.5MB) → link transport → file server upload (SD-001)
Small payload (<0.5MB) → direct transport → base64 encoding (SD-005)
Receiver calls smartunpack() → receives same tuple format with preserved types

NFR Traceability:

Performance: NFR-101 (serialization <50ms), NFR-102 (deserialization <50ms), NFR-103 (connection <100ms) ✅
Reliability: NFR-201 (at-least-once delivery), NFR-202 (file server <5% failure), NFR-203 (auto-reconnect <30s) ✅
Security: NFR-301 (SHA-256 checksum), NFR-302 (TLS 100%), NFR-303 (authenticated uploads) ✅
Observability: NFR-401 (required logs), NFR-402 (metrics), NFR-403 (tracing), NFR-404 (alerting <5min) ✅

This solution design document is versioned and maintained in git alongside the codebase. All implementations must adhere to this design.

Traceability Summary:

All requirements traced to solution components with SD-XXX decision IDs
Each decision ID references the corresponding requirement IDs (FR-XXX, NFR-XXX)
Specification must cite SD-XXX references for each technical detail

21 KiB Raw Blame History

Solution Design: msghandler

1. Problem Decomposition

User Problems

Solution Boundaries

Decision IDs

2. Solution Approach

Key Design Decisions

Architecture Components

3. Alternatives Considered

4. High-Level Component Diagram

Component Responsibilities

5. Decision Rationale

SD-001: Why Claim-Check Pattern?

SD-002: Why Handler Functions for File Server?

SD-003: Why Tuple Format for Payloads?

SD-004: Why Base64 Encoding?

SD-005: Why Automatic Transport Selection?

SD-006: Why Transport Abstraction?

SD-007: Why Exponential Backoff?

SD-008: Why Correlation ID Propagation?

6. Risk Assessment

7. Requirements Traceability

Non-Functional Requirements Traceability

8. Gap-Check Validation

Solution Design Validation

21 KiB

Raw Blame History