docs: align use-case claims with the JS port - #55
Merged
Conversation
The fit guide called a rate limiter an anti-pattern while the JS README sold per-key rate limits, and "Is it worth installing here?" listed long-lived workflows with no limit. A reader who compared the two projects got contradictory advice about one runtime. Both now draw one line. A low-rate quota that a reminder refills fits, because each check is one durable ordered message with a retained history row. A limiter that every request touches does not. A workflow fits when one entity owns the mutable state and its mailbox holds the step order; a durable execution engine that replays named steps from a step log is a different tool. Name Solid Objects Pro in the fit guide for the high-QPS cases it rejects, and map its three capabilities onto them. The README already pointed there; the guide stopped at "anti-pattern". Title the README "Solid Objects Ruby" to match "Solid Objects JS" in the Node package, and give both the same two badges: a CI badge pinned to main and a registry version badge. The gem name, the module, and the published metadata do not change.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Why
The gem and
solid-objects-jsgave contradictory advice about one runtime.docs/fit.mdcalled a rate limiter an anti-pattern, while the JS README sold per-key rate limits as a pattern. "Is it worth installing here?" listed long-lived workflows with no limit, while the JS fit guide sent step-replay workflows elsewhere. A reader who compared the two projects could not tell which was right.What changed
Both repos now draw one line, in matching words:
docs/fit.mdalso names Solid Objects Pro for the high-QPS cases it rejects, and maps the three capabilities onto them: grouped operations, ephemeral operations, and reactive projections. The README already pointed there; the guide stopped at "anti-pattern".Branding
The README is titled "Solid Objects Ruby", matching "Solid Objects JS" in the Node package, and both READMEs now carry the same two badges: a CI badge pinned to
main, and a registry version badge. The gem name, the module, and the published gemspec metadata do not change.Testing
bundle exec rakepasses: Minitest on SQLite, Standard, RuboCop, RBS, Steep, and Brakeman with no warnings.Paired change
cardmagic/solid-objects-js#30 carries the Node half.