More or less forcibly squeeze all the existing implementation
into the new basic structure with two separate »pillars«
**Breakages**
- existing code expected the `BufferStore` to transition to ''locked'' state
- existing code expected `provideLockedBuffer(typeID)` to tail-call the
`buildHandle()` function of the enclosing `BufferProvider` base implementation
- various diagnostic usages bypassed the official APIs and called directly
into the implementation. This is no longer possible; rather, `DiagnosticBufferProvider`
needs to provide additional diagnostic API to suit those purposes
The outward interface has stood the test of time quite well.
But the back-side towards the implementation is a tangled mess,
presumably due to being developed from prototyping code: the
actual implementation is completely overgrown by diagnostics
and test instrumentation, since running in unit test setup
was the only actual usage of this code ever since.
My first attempt with decomposing into a decorator-chain failed.
Thus the new line of attack is to introduce two implementation
pillars right from top-level
- `BufferStage` : the state and metadata handling
- `BufferStore` : the storage backend
These are defined as nested interfaces, and the further refactoring
starts with subclassing everything, nested as it is.
The ''design exercise'' started yesterday ran into a total rodadblock.
And this is a good thing, as this unveils inconsistencies in our memory handling protocols
* Buffer Provider Protocol
* Output Slot Protocol
The latter exposes a `BuffHandle`, which should be usable from within the Render Node code
like any other regular buffer handle — which especially would require to ''delegate the lifecycle calls...''
So while this topic does not hinder us right now to proceed with a Node invocation in test setup,
it must be addressed before we're able to deliver data into an actual OutputSlot.
Created #1387 to track this topic...
This investigation started out as solving an already solved problem...
I'll continue this as a design exercise non the less.
__Some explanation__: To achieve the goal of invoking a Node end-to-end,
the gap between the `Port` API, the `ProcNode` API and the `RenderInvocation` must be closed.
This leads to questions of API design: ''what core operation should the `ProcNode` API expose?''
* is `ProcNode` just a forwarding / delegating container and becoming redundant?
* or does the API rather move in the direction of an ''Exit Node''?
This leads to the question how the opened `OutputSlot` can be exposed as a `BuffHandle`
to allow to set off the recursive Node invocation. As it turns out, the onerous for this step
lies on the actual `OutputSlot` implementation, since the API and output protocol already requires
to expose a `BuffHandle`. Yet there is no "real" implementation available, just a Mock setup based
on `DiagnosticBufferProvider`, which obviously can just be passed-through.
Which leaves me with mixed feelings. For one it is conveninent to skip this topic for now,
but on the other hand the design of `BufferProvider` does not seem well suited for such an proxying task.
Thus I decided to explore this aspect in the form of a prototyping test....
