registry

registry copied to clipboard

This PR introduces a proposal to support OCI v1.1 as a content source in Warg. I'm opening this in draft status to start the discussion and iterate on feedback.

Todos:

• Describe the code implementation in the Warg code base
• Fill in sections on conclusions and test plan

For your viewing convenience: https://github.com/devigned/registry/blob/oci-source/proposals/20230316-oci-content-source.md

/cc @Kylebrown9 @lann @radu-matei @peterhuene

Summary comment is I think that we should be very precise in language and focus on wasm modules, not wasm components.

Remember component model is phase 1 in w3c. This is literally the first phase and by definition isn't stable for implementation.

Meanwhile, compilers build wasm modules, and places where wasi is mentioned, it should be about wasip1 specifically at this point in history and implementation.

If this was a naming glitch, I would replace the word "component" with "module" and try to align language with the webassembly spec, no later than the 2.0draft. If this wasn't a glitch, and this is really supposed to be about "component" like component model, I feel the cart is sincerely in front of the horse.

My 2p

@codefromthecrypt the entire registry architecture is designed for components specifically, not core wasm modules. Components give us a lot of properties that core modules don't have—most importantly a language- and runtime-agnostic way to pass high-level data with Interface Types, shared-nothing linking, and generally full isolation guarantees.

The charter for the BA's SIG-Registries spells this out explicitly, too.

OK I suppose maybe there should be an issue like this in the WebAssembly repo, as there's lack of coherence in core wasm modules, and they certainly will be around a while. Meanwhile, agree this is the bytecodealliance (not w3c) repository and can certainly decide to only solve component model!