Question and use cases

Deployment hosts, platform contexts, framework services, and runtime resources.

Use this view when explaining where a capability runs, who owns its rules, and which infrastructure it consumes.

Use the diagram during design review, incident diagnosis, code walkthroughs, and onboarding. It intentionally omits classes and projects unrelated to the focused question, so read it together with the source entry point and related topic pages.

This page covers only the named responsibilities and relationships; consult the relevant module documentation for capabilities not shown here.

Reading path

Step 1: Begin with the five runnable hosts and separate edge, request, background, orchestration, and license-signing responsibilities.
Step 2: Move into the platform contexts; each box is a capability boundary, not merely a folder.
Step 3: Finish at framework services and runtime resources to see what modules consume without owning.

Do not skip arrow direction, numbering, or group titles: they express dependency or time direction, execution order, and responsibility boundaries. If the diagram differs from current source or accepted architecture decisions, correct the generated catalog immediately.

Legend and notation

Visual element	Meaning	What it does not imply
Coral focus	The decision point or primary path emphasized by this view	That the element is always more important or privileged
Blue boundary	An external system, protocol edge, or explicit boundary	That it must be an independently deployed service
Muted connector	A dependency, call, transition, or data flow as named by its label	Synchronous, same-transaction, or exactly-once behavior
Group frame	A responsibility, layer, or lifecycle phase	A team or physical-machine boundary

This is a ARCHITECTURE diagram. Use that form to understand the layout, then test your interpretation against the source facts below.

Key relationships and design meaning

Relationship 1

Source fact: Gateway, API, JobHost, and AppHost are separate runtime projects with different responsibilities.

Architectural meaning: Choose a host by execution responsibility; adding an endpoint to JobHost or a scheduled task to API would blur deployment and operational boundaries.

Review action: Which host is the composition root for the scenario?

Relationship 2

Source fact: Platform capabilities live in bounded contexts under src/Platform; hosts compose them instead of owning their domain rules.

Architectural meaning: A host may wire many modules, but changes to a platform rule still belong in the owning context and remain independently testable.

Review action: Which bounded context owns the invariant?

Relationship 3

Source fact: Persistence, messaging, caching, storage, and observability are framework or infrastructure concerns below the modules.

Architectural meaning: Infrastructure can be replaced at composition time only while module-facing contracts and observable behavior remain stable.

Review action: Is an infrastructure dependency leaking into domain ownership?

Design review questions

Answer each question when reviewing or implementing a related change. If code, tests, or an ADR cannot support the answer, do not decide from the diagram alone.

Which host is the composition root for the scenario?
Which bounded context owns the invariant?
Is an infrastructure dependency leaking into domain ownership?

How to use the answers

Identify the single owner of the capability or rule.
Confirm that dependency, call, or event direction does not reverse ownership.
Capture the conclusion with an automated test or repeatable command.

Boundaries and common mistakes

Boundary 1

The diagram groups representative modules; it is not a complete project inventory.

Do not infer: A connector in the diagram does not mean every implementation uses synchronous calls, a shared transaction, or shared data ownership.
Review requirement: Which bounded context owns the invariant?

Boundary 2

An arrow shows runtime composition or dependency direction, not synchronous invocation in every request.

Do not infer: A connector in the diagram does not mean every implementation uses synchronous calls, a shared transaction, or shared data ownership.
Review requirement: Is an infrastructure dependency leaking into domain ownership?

Source verification and regeneration

The primary verification entry point is src/Hosts + src/Platform + src/Framework. Inspect it and its direct references before regenerating diagram assets and pages.

# Regenerate bilingual SVG, standalone HTML, and documentation pages
npm run diagrams

# Check locale pairs, references, safety attributes, accessibility, and canvas bounds
npm run verify:diagrams

# Confirm that generation changed only the intended diagrams and pages
git diff -- scripts/diagrams diagram-sources public/diagrams src/content/docs

# Verify internal links, MDX structure, and professional depth gates
npm run verify:docs
npm run audit:docs-depth

Change-completion checklist

Responsibilities, order, states, and relationships match current source.
Every new element helps answer this page’s question instead of turning the diagram into an inventory.
Arrows have explicit direction and semantics without implying nonexistent synchronous or transactional guarantees.
Chinese and English titles, labels, facts, and boundaries remain semantically equivalent.
The diagram remains readable on narrow screens, in fullscreen, and while zoomed, with no overlap or overflow.
Relevant architecture tests, integration tests, or verification commands have run.
If a long-lived constraint changed, its ADR or architecture documentation is updated.

System overview