a54a160631
Document the existing JCZ/MOPA implementation in MeerK40t, the Rayforge host-platform opportunity, alternatives, risks, and offline proof gates. Reframe the roadmap around validating reuse before building a new desktop stack.
87 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
87 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
# ADR 0002: Prove reuse of Rayforge and BalorMK before building an app
|
|
|
|
- Status: Proposed
|
|
- Date: 2026-10-17
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
The initial roadmap assumed that The Pirate Ray would define its own offline
|
|
application core and would later research the JCZ protocol. Ecosystem research
|
|
found two MIT-licensed projects that substantially change that assumption:
|
|
|
|
- Rayforge already implements most of the desired cross-platform desktop
|
|
product and has an addon/driver architecture, LightBurn import, simulation,
|
|
material recipes, pre-flight validation, and MOPA-relevant operation fields.
|
|
- MeerK40t's BalorMK already implements the EZCAD2-compatible JCZ controller
|
|
protocol, MOPA pulse width, a mock connection, and the exact USB VID/PID
|
|
independently observed in our installer evidence.
|
|
|
|
Creating another editor, geometry stack and controller implementation would
|
|
duplicate large, safety-relevant bodies of work and permanently increase the
|
|
maintenance burden.
|
|
|
|
## Proposed decision
|
|
|
|
Do not begin independent desktop product implementation. First run three
|
|
offline, version-pinned proofs:
|
|
|
|
1. evaluate stock MeerK40t with BalorMK's mock controller as the shortest
|
|
route to a usable product;
|
|
2. prove that an external Rayforge addon can register a binary no-device
|
|
driver and survive packaging on Windows;
|
|
3. translate one synthetic Rayforge operation stream to JCZ/Balor commands and
|
|
compare it with a BalorMK mock trace.
|
|
|
|
If the proofs pass, prefer one of these outcomes in order:
|
|
|
|
1. use and contribute to MeerK40t if its full application is adequate;
|
|
2. implement and upstream a Rayforge JCZ/Balor addon, adapting the narrowest
|
|
practical layer from BalorMK;
|
|
3. extract a small maintained controller library shared by either application.
|
|
|
|
An independent desktop application requires a later ADR showing concrete,
|
|
tested gaps in both existing applications.
|
|
|
|
No copied upstream source enters this repository until the project license is
|
|
chosen and exact commit-level copyright/license attribution is recorded.
|
|
|
|
## Proof obligations
|
|
|
|
- All experiments are mock/no-I/O and cannot enumerate or open USB devices.
|
|
- Frequency and pulse-width units and defaults survive end-to-end.
|
|
- Galvo coordinates, correction, timing, list buffering, framing, cancel and
|
|
status semantics fit the host abstraction or their required extensions are
|
|
explicit.
|
|
- The adapter emits deterministic traces suitable for golden tests.
|
|
- Hardware transport is optional, disabled by default, and separated from
|
|
encoding.
|
|
- Machine/source/lens/profile mismatch fails closed.
|
|
- Windows driver switching is excluded from automatic setup.
|
|
- Upstream contribution feasibility and API stability are assessed before a
|
|
permanent fork is accepted.
|
|
|
|
## Consequences if accepted
|
|
|
|
- The project becomes an integration, validation and safety effort rather
|
|
than a general CAD application effort.
|
|
- M1 is shortened to ecosystem validation and a JCZ vertical slice.
|
|
- Protocol capture is a fallback used only for unresolved behavior, not the
|
|
first discovery method.
|
|
- The eventual public repository may primarily contain an addon, machine
|
|
profiles, tests, fixtures and documentation.
|
|
- Project license selection becomes a prerequisite for adapted code. MIT is
|
|
the simplest compatibility candidate, but this ADR does not select it.
|
|
|
|
## Rejection criteria
|
|
|
|
Reject the proposed Rayforge route if the addon seam cannot support a binary
|
|
galvo driver without maintaining invasive core changes, or if the operation
|
|
model loses required galvo/MOPA semantics. Reject the stock MeerK40t route if
|
|
the tested application cannot provide a safe and maintainable workshop
|
|
workflow. Record evidence before choosing a standalone app.
|
|
|
|
## Research basis
|
|
|
|
See [Open-source landscape](../research/open-source-landscape.md) for the
|
|
candidate matrix, inspected commits, risks and detailed spike plan.
|
|
|