Follows the org lead's two corrections on docs#170. The Rust example is an OXIDE
plugin - naming the framework is the difference between a design a reader can
start from and one they have to go and choose for themselves - and the
architecture pairs one sidecar to one game server, on that server's own host.
Chapter 3 gains the general form of that second one, since it is the chapter
where a reader decides what to build: if your game runs as a fleet, "how many
sidecars" is answered by where the loopback boundary is, not by how many
processes you would rather run. Your module holding several clients is the
cheaper end of that trade, and core never learns there is more than one.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
The kit taught, to an audience outside this org, that Rust needs "no game-side
plugin to write at all" because it ships RCON. That is overruled: the Rust dry
run reaches the game through a MOD - a plugin loaded by the server's own
framework, hooking events and dialling out - exactly as the ServUO overlay does
(docs#170).
Chapter 3's section kept its question and lost its example, which turned out to
improve it. The useful test is not "does my game expose a protocol" but "does it
DELIVER EVENTS": a remote-control channel is built for an operator typing
commands and tells you what you asked about, when you ask, and a website needs
what happened whether or not anyone was listening. A channel that answers
questions can only be polled, and polling turns "someone left the clan at 14:02"
into "the count was different at 14:03".
Rust now appears in that section as the counter-example rather than the example,
and carries the finding that is actually worth having: its server is a BINARY
where ServUO is source you compile, and the three-part shape survives that
unchanged. The plugin-dials-out arrangement is not a property of having source
access.
Chapter 4 said a game with a remote-control protocol may not need any of it, and
that its worked example is source you build. Both now say what is true - the
rules in that chapter are properties of being inside a game loop, and apply
identically to a mod in a closed server.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
The book, written out of the tree slice 1 proved. Four chapters in the order the
work happens: the first module in twenty minutes, the website module, the sidecar,
and the game-side plugin.
Shape, settled with the org lead:
* template/README.md stays the REFERENCE — it travels with a copied template and
CI holds it against the tree — and chapter 1 is the narration: what you should
see after each step, the state your module lands in, and the four ways it fails.
The chapter links to the checklist rather than restating it.
* chapters 3 and 4 cite link/ and servuo-plugins/ by FILE AND IDENTIFIER, never by
line. Those repositories move for their own reasons and checkLinks already
forbids commit permalinks, so a line number in this book is wrong the moment
they do. The template stays the only code quoted verbatim.
* one PR: the outline's status table and the link check are only coherent when the
whole set lands.
scripts/checkChapterPaths.js is the anti-rot half a machine can answer: every path
a chapter names in backticks must exist. None of those mentions is a markdown link,
so checkLinks never looked at them, and none is code, so nothing else did either —
renaming one template file would have left four chapters quietly pointing at
nothing. Its anchor list is STATED rather than derived from the tree, for the reason
the template's own build guard states it: a list derived from what exists cannot
fail when what exists changes, and an anchor that stops matching is a check that has
silently stopped checking. So each anchor must exist or the check fails. Eleven
tests, every "must not catch" case a span that really appears in the book.
stripFences moved to scripts/lib/markdown.js and both checks use it — shared code,
not a shared description.
CHAPTER 1 WAS RUN, NOT REASONED ABOUT. The template was copied into a real core on
edge, booted against the dev database, and every claim in "what you should see"
checked: the five log lines, /examplegame/status with its injected
<script type="module" src="/modules/examplegame/entry.js">, the chunk served
no-cache while module.json 404s, /api/v1/public/world/status, the capabilities in
/api/v1/public/modules, and the route in the merged /api/docs.json. Then the three
failures the chapter tells a reader to cause on purpose, because a chapter that
predicts the wrong debugging heuristic is worse than one that predicts none:
* an undeclared prefix -> stage `register`, "declared public/extra but never
registered it", routes 404 and absent from /public/modules;
* a table without the id prefix -> stage `schema`, at LOAD time, before mounting;
* a throwing onBoot -> after mounting, so the same route answers 503 "Module
unavailable" rather than vanishing.
All three came out exactly as written, and the messages in the chapter are that
core's own. Two small corrections fell out of the run: the log sample now shows the
real interleaving of core's three lines with the module's two, and the section on
failure adds that a module disappears from /api/v1/public/modules in every failure
case — a check that needs no login.
MODULE_SYSTEM.md 2.11.1 slice 2. Docs half: docs#146.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
