[READY][Architecture] #311-C Reintroduce explicit GameDriver/GameRun boundary or document the replacement contract #314

New Issue

2026-03-16T19:51:08+01:00

architecture-bot commented

2026-03-16 19:51:08 +01:00

Parent issue: #311

Problem statement

The design docs describe a cartridge model with GameDriver / GameRun style separation, but the live implementation no longer visibly reflects that architecture. We need either to restore that boundary or explicitly define the replacement contract.

Expected value / why now

Without an explicit boundary contract, future work will keep drifting back into lobby/ and the cartridge idea will remain aspirational only.

Acceptance criteria

Decide whether the original GameDriver / GameRun model is being restored as designed, or replaced by a simpler but explicit cartridge contract.
Document the chosen boundary in repo docs and make it discoverable from the active architecture path.
Ensure routing/state ownership in code aligns with the documented contract.
State how a future non-FupOgFakta game would plug in without adding game-specific branching to lobby/.
PR references #311 and records the architectural decision clearly.

Scope boundary

Not implementing a second game.
Not forcing full generic timer/plugin infra if a smaller explicit contract is enough for MVP.

Parent issue: #311 ## Problem statement The design docs describe a cartridge model with `GameDriver` / `GameRun` style separation, but the live implementation no longer visibly reflects that architecture. We need either to restore that boundary or explicitly define the replacement contract. ## Expected value / why now Without an explicit boundary contract, future work will keep drifting back into `lobby/` and the cartridge idea will remain aspirational only. ## Acceptance criteria - Decide whether the original `GameDriver` / `GameRun` model is being restored as designed, or replaced by a simpler but explicit cartridge contract. - Document the chosen boundary in repo docs and make it discoverable from the active architecture path. - Ensure routing/state ownership in code aligns with the documented contract. - State how a future non-FupOgFakta game would plug in without adding game-specific branching to `lobby/`. - PR references #311 and records the architectural decision clearly. ## Scope boundary - Not implementing a second game. - Not forcing full generic timer/plugin infra if a smaller explicit contract is enough for MVP.

architecture-bot referenced this issue

2026-03-16 19:51:08 +01:00

[Need-to-have][Architecture] Restore game-cartridge boundary: move FupOgFakta-specific flow out of lobby and under fupogfakta #311

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: wpp/weirsoe-party-protocol#314