Extensibility Model¶

Extension work should use the package seams that already exist instead of bypassing ownership.

This page is about where variation is welcomed and where it would be a design smell. A package becomes easier to extend when contributors can see which seams are meant to flex and which ones are carrying the core identity of the package.

Treat the architecture pages for bijux-canon-index as a reviewer-facing map of structure and flow. They should shorten code reading, not try to replace it.

Visual Summary¶

graph TD
    A[Extensibility Model] --> B[Extension point]
    B --> C[Contract guardrails]
    C --> D[Adapter or backend plugin]
    D --> E[Compatibility checks]
    E --> F[Safe extension adoption]

Likely Extension Areas¶

src/bijux_canon_index/domain for execution, provenance, and request semantics
src/bijux_canon_index/application for workflow coordination
src/bijux_canon_index/infra for backends, adapters, and runtime environment helpers
src/bijux_canon_index/interfaces for CLI and operator-facing edges
src/bijux_canon_index/api for HTTP application surfaces
src/bijux_canon_index/contracts for stable contract definitions

Extension Rule¶

Add extension points where the package already expects variation, and document them next to the owning boundary.

Concrete Anchors¶

src/bijux_canon_index/domain for execution, provenance, and request semantics
src/bijux_canon_index/application for workflow coordination
src/bijux_canon_index/infra for backends, adapters, and runtime environment helpers

Use This Page When¶

you are tracing structure, execution flow, or dependency pressure
you need to understand how modules fit before refactoring
you are reviewing design drift rather than one isolated bug

Decision Rule¶

Use Extensibility Model to decide whether a structural change makes bijux-canon-index easier or harder to explain in terms of modules, dependency direction, and execution flow. If the change works only because the design becomes harder to read, the safer answer is redesign rather than acceptance.

What This Page Answers¶

how bijux-canon-index is organized internally in terms a reviewer can follow
which modules carry the main execution and dependency story
where structural drift would show up before it becomes expensive

Reviewer Lens¶

trace the described execution path through the named modules instead of trusting the diagram alone
look for dependency direction or layering that now contradicts the documented seam
verify that the structural risks named here still match the current code shape

Honesty Boundary¶

This page describes the current structural model of bijux-canon-index, but it does not guarantee that every import path or runtime path still obeys that model. Readers should treat it as a map that must stay aligned with code and tests, not as an authority above them.

Next Checks¶

move to interfaces when the review reaches a public or operator-facing seam
move to operations when the concern becomes repeatable runtime behavior
move to quality when you need proof that the documented structure is still protected

Purpose¶

This page helps maintainers extend the package without smearing responsibilities together.

Stability¶

Keep it aligned with the package seams that actually support extension today.