|
| 1 | +# Remote Architecture |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +This document describes the target architecture for first-class remote environments in T3 Code. |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +It is intentionally architecture-first. It does not define a complete implementation plan or user-facing rollout checklist. The goal is to establish the core model so remote support can be added without another broad rewrite. |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +## Goals |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +- Treat remote environments as first-class product primitives, not special cases. |
| 10 | +- Support multiple ways to reach the same environment. |
| 11 | +- Keep the T3 server as the execution boundary. |
| 12 | +- Let desktop, mobile, and web all share the same conceptual model. |
| 13 | +- Avoid introducing a local control plane unless product pressure proves it is necessary. |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +## Non-goals |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +- Replacing the existing WebSocket server boundary with a custom transport protocol. |
| 18 | +- Making SSH the only remote story. |
| 19 | +- Syncing provider auth across machines. |
| 20 | +- Shipping every access method in the first iteration. |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +## High-level architecture |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +T3 already has a clean runtime boundary: the client talks to a T3 server over HTTP/WebSocket, and the server owns orchestration, providers, terminals, git, and filesystem operations. |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +Remote support should preserve that boundary. |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +```text |
| 29 | +┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐ |
| 30 | +│ Client (desktop / mobile / web) │ |
| 31 | +│ │ |
| 32 | +│ - known environments │ |
| 33 | +│ - connection manager │ |
| 34 | +│ - environment-aware routing │ |
| 35 | +└───────────────┬──────────────────────────────┘ |
| 36 | + │ |
| 37 | + │ resolves one access endpoint |
| 38 | + │ |
| 39 | +┌───────────────▼──────────────────────────────┐ |
| 40 | +│ Access method │ |
| 41 | +│ │ |
| 42 | +│ - direct ws / wss │ |
| 43 | +│ - tunneled ws / wss │ |
| 44 | +│ - desktop-managed ssh bootstrap + forward │ |
| 45 | +└───────────────┬──────────────────────────────┘ |
| 46 | + │ |
| 47 | + │ connects to one T3 server |
| 48 | + │ |
| 49 | +┌───────────────▼──────────────────────────────┐ |
| 50 | +│ Execution environment = one T3 server │ |
| 51 | +│ │ |
| 52 | +│ - environment identity │ |
| 53 | +│ - provider state │ |
| 54 | +│ - projects / threads / terminals │ |
| 55 | +│ - git / filesystem / process runtime │ |
| 56 | +└──────────────────────────────────────────────┘ |
| 57 | +``` |
| 58 | + |
| 59 | +The important decision is that remoteness is expressed at the environment connection layer, not by splitting the T3 runtime itself. |
| 60 | + |
| 61 | +## Domain model |
| 62 | + |
| 63 | +### ExecutionEnvironment |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +An `ExecutionEnvironment` is one running T3 server instance. |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +It is the unit that owns: |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +- provider availability and auth state |
| 70 | +- model availability |
| 71 | +- projects and threads |
| 72 | +- terminal processes |
| 73 | +- filesystem access |
| 74 | +- git operations |
| 75 | +- server settings |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +It is identified by a stable `environmentId`. |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | +This is the shared cross-client primitive. Desktop, mobile, and web should all reason about the same concept here. |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +### KnownEnvironment |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +A `KnownEnvironment` is a client-side saved entry for an environment the client knows how to reach. |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +It is not server-authored. It is local to a device or client profile. |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +Examples: |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | +- a saved LAN URL |
| 90 | +- a saved public `wss://` endpoint |
| 91 | +- a desktop-managed SSH host entry |
| 92 | +- a saved tunneled environment |
| 93 | + |
| 94 | +A known environment may or may not know the target `environmentId` before first successful connect. |
| 95 | + |
| 96 | +### AccessEndpoint |
| 97 | + |
| 98 | +An `AccessEndpoint` is one concrete way to reach a known environment. |
| 99 | + |
| 100 | +This is the key abstraction that keeps SSH from taking over the model. |
| 101 | + |
| 102 | +A single environment may have many endpoints: |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | +- `wss://t3.example.com` |
| 105 | +- `ws://10.0.0.25:3773` |
| 106 | +- a tunneled relay URL |
| 107 | +- a desktop-managed SSH tunnel that resolves to a local forwarded WebSocket URL |
| 108 | + |
| 109 | +The environment stays the same. Only the access path changes. |
| 110 | + |
| 111 | +### RepositoryIdentity |
| 112 | + |
| 113 | +`RepositoryIdentity` remains a best-effort logical repo grouping mechanism across environments. |
| 114 | + |
| 115 | +It is not used for routing. It is only used for UI grouping and correlation between local and remote clones of the same repository. |
| 116 | + |
| 117 | +### Workspace / Project |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +The current `Project` model remains environment-local. |
| 120 | + |
| 121 | +That means: |
| 122 | + |
| 123 | +- a local clone and a remote clone are different projects |
| 124 | +- they may share a `RepositoryIdentity` |
| 125 | +- threads still bind to one project in one environment |
| 126 | + |
| 127 | +## Access methods |
| 128 | + |
| 129 | +Access methods answer one question: |
| 130 | + |
| 131 | +How does the client speak WebSocket to a T3 server? |
| 132 | + |
| 133 | +They do not answer: |
| 134 | + |
| 135 | +- how the server got started |
| 136 | +- who manages the server process |
| 137 | +- whether the environment is local or remote |
| 138 | + |
| 139 | +### 1. Direct WebSocket access |
| 140 | + |
| 141 | +Examples: |
| 142 | + |
| 143 | +- `ws://10.0.0.15:3773` |
| 144 | +- `wss://t3.example.com` |
| 145 | + |
| 146 | +This is the base model and should be the first-class default. |
| 147 | + |
| 148 | +Benefits: |
| 149 | + |
| 150 | +- works for desktop, mobile, and web |
| 151 | +- no client-specific process management required |
| 152 | +- best fit for hosted or self-managed remote T3 deployments |
| 153 | + |
| 154 | +### 2. Tunneled WebSocket access |
| 155 | + |
| 156 | +Examples: |
| 157 | + |
| 158 | +- public relay URLs |
| 159 | +- private network relay URLs |
| 160 | +- local tunnel products such as pipenet |
| 161 | + |
| 162 | +This is still direct WebSocket access from the client's perspective. The difference is that the route is mediated by a tunnel or relay. |
| 163 | + |
| 164 | +For T3, tunnels are best modeled as another `AccessEndpoint`, not as a different kind of environment. |
| 165 | + |
| 166 | +This is especially useful when: |
| 167 | + |
| 168 | +- the host is behind NAT |
| 169 | +- inbound ports are unavailable |
| 170 | +- mobile must reach a desktop-hosted environment |
| 171 | +- a machine should be reachable without exposing raw LAN or public ports |
| 172 | + |
| 173 | +### 3. Desktop-managed SSH access |
| 174 | + |
| 175 | +SSH is an access and launch helper, not a separate environment type. |
| 176 | + |
| 177 | +The desktop main process can use SSH to: |
| 178 | + |
| 179 | +- reach a machine |
| 180 | +- probe it |
| 181 | +- launch or reuse a remote T3 server |
| 182 | +- establish a local port forward |
| 183 | + |
| 184 | +After that, the renderer should still connect using an ordinary WebSocket URL against the forwarded local port. |
| 185 | + |
| 186 | +This keeps the renderer transport model consistent with every other access method. |
| 187 | + |
| 188 | +## Launch methods |
| 189 | + |
| 190 | +Launch methods answer a different question: |
| 191 | + |
| 192 | +How does a T3 server come to exist on the target machine? |
| 193 | + |
| 194 | +Launch and access should stay separate in the design. |
| 195 | + |
| 196 | +### 1. Pre-existing server |
| 197 | + |
| 198 | +The simplest launch method is no launch at all. |
| 199 | + |
| 200 | +The user or operator already runs T3 on the target machine, and the client connects through a direct or tunneled WebSocket endpoint. |
| 201 | + |
| 202 | +This should be the first remote mode shipped because it validates the environment model with minimal extra machinery. |
| 203 | + |
| 204 | +### 2. Desktop-managed remote launch over SSH |
| 205 | + |
| 206 | +This is the main place where Zed is a useful reference. |
| 207 | + |
| 208 | +Useful ideas to borrow from Zed: |
| 209 | + |
| 210 | +- remote probing |
| 211 | +- platform detection |
| 212 | +- session directories with pid/log metadata |
| 213 | +- reconnect-friendly launcher behavior |
| 214 | +- desktop-owned connection UX |
| 215 | + |
| 216 | +What should be different in T3: |
| 217 | + |
| 218 | +- no custom stdio/socket proxy protocol between renderer and remote runtime |
| 219 | +- no attempt to make the remote runtime look like an editor transport |
| 220 | +- keep the final client-to-server connection as WebSocket |
| 221 | + |
| 222 | +The recommended T3 flow is: |
| 223 | + |
| 224 | +1. Desktop connects over SSH. |
| 225 | +2. Desktop probes the remote machine and verifies T3 availability. |
| 226 | +3. Desktop launches or reuses a remote T3 server. |
| 227 | +4. Desktop establishes local port forwarding. |
| 228 | +5. Renderer connects to the forwarded WebSocket endpoint as a normal environment. |
| 229 | + |
| 230 | +### 3. Client-managed local publish |
| 231 | + |
| 232 | +This is the inverse of remote launch: a local T3 server is already running, and the client publishes it through a tunnel. |
| 233 | + |
| 234 | +This is useful for: |
| 235 | + |
| 236 | +- exposing a desktop-hosted environment to mobile |
| 237 | +- temporary remote access without changing router or firewall settings |
| 238 | + |
| 239 | +This is still a launch concern, not a new environment kind. |
| 240 | + |
| 241 | +## Why access and launch must stay separate |
| 242 | + |
| 243 | +These concerns are easy to conflate, but separating them prevents architectural drift. |
| 244 | + |
| 245 | +Examples: |
| 246 | + |
| 247 | +- A manually hosted T3 server might be reached through direct `wss`. |
| 248 | +- The same server might also be reachable through a tunnel. |
| 249 | +- An SSH-managed server might be launched over SSH but then reached through forwarded WebSocket. |
| 250 | +- A local desktop server might be published through a tunnel for mobile. |
| 251 | + |
| 252 | +In all of those cases, the `ExecutionEnvironment` is the same kind of thing. |
| 253 | + |
| 254 | +Only the launch and access paths differ. |
| 255 | + |
| 256 | +## Security model |
| 257 | + |
| 258 | +Remote support must assume that some environments will be reachable over untrusted networks. |
| 259 | + |
| 260 | +That means: |
| 261 | + |
| 262 | +- remote-capable environments should require explicit authentication |
| 263 | +- tunnel exposure should not rely on obscurity |
| 264 | +- client-saved endpoints should carry enough auth metadata to reconnect safely |
| 265 | + |
| 266 | +T3 already supports a WebSocket auth token on the server. That should become a first-class part of environment access rather than remaining an incidental query parameter convention. |
| 267 | + |
| 268 | +For publicly reachable environments, authenticated access should be treated as required. |
| 269 | + |
| 270 | +## Relationship to Zed |
| 271 | + |
| 272 | +Zed is a useful reference implementation for managed remote launch and reconnect behavior. |
| 273 | + |
| 274 | +The relevant lessons are: |
| 275 | + |
| 276 | +- remote bootstrap should be explicit |
| 277 | +- reconnect should be first-class |
| 278 | +- connection UX belongs in the client shell |
| 279 | +- runtime ownership should stay clearly on the remote host |
| 280 | + |
| 281 | +The important mismatch is transport shape. |
| 282 | + |
| 283 | +Zed needs a custom proxy/server protocol because its remote boundary sits below the editor and project runtime. |
| 284 | + |
| 285 | +T3 should not copy that part. |
| 286 | + |
| 287 | +T3 already has the right runtime boundary: |
| 288 | + |
| 289 | +- one T3 server per environment |
| 290 | +- ordinary HTTP/WebSocket between client and environment |
| 291 | + |
| 292 | +So T3 should borrow Zed's launch discipline, not its transport protocol. |
| 293 | + |
| 294 | +## Recommended rollout |
| 295 | + |
| 296 | +1. First-class known environments and access endpoints. |
| 297 | +2. Direct `ws` / `wss` remote environments. |
| 298 | +3. Authenticated tunnel-backed environments. |
| 299 | +4. Desktop-managed SSH launch and forwarding. |
| 300 | +5. Multi-environment UI improvements after the base runtime path is proven. |
| 301 | + |
| 302 | +This ordering keeps the architecture network-first and transport-agnostic while still leaving room for richer managed remote flows. |
0 commit comments