0060. Packages are published as `@meshfw/*`; the command is `mesh`

0060. Packages are published as @meshfw/*; the command is mesh

Status

Accepted. Supersedes ADR-0040.

Date

2026-10-04

Deciders

operator (Saulo Vallory)

Context

The packages were written @mesh/* as working names, and ADR-0040 asked for an npm availability check before M2’s generated code imported them, because a later rename touches every generated file. The name mesh is taken on npm.

Decision

Operator, 2026-10-04 evening, rulings of 2026-10-04, section “Rulings on the user docs, layout and terms (2026-10-04 evening, operator)”, row “npm organisation”:

meshfw, at least for now (mesh is taken on npm). Packages are @meshfw/* (@meshfw/cli, @meshfw/runtime, …); the product is still called Mesh and the binary mesh. Registered by the operator on 2026-10-04.

The v1 packages are @meshfw/model, @meshfw/compiler, @meshfw/runtime, @meshfw/cli, @meshfw/data-drizzle, @meshfw/data-sqlite and @meshfw/data-postgres, plus the MX host package mesh (ADR-0051), whose name MX fixes. There is no @meshfw/ext-policies: policies are core (ADR-0055).

Options considered

Option A: @meshfw/* (chosen)

Pros: registered; one scope groups every package.
Cons: the scope differs from the product name.

Option B: keep @mesh/* as working names

Pros: no rename.
Cons: cannot be published.

Option C: unscoped names (mesh-runtime, …)

Pros: no scope.
Cons: each name is a separate claim; packages are not grouped.

Trade-off analysis

Only Option A can be published. The mismatch between scope and product name is cosmetic.

Consequences

• Generated code imports @meshfw/runtime; the import rules checked by verify name @meshfw/*.
• The workspace packages on main are still @mesh/* until the realignment task.

Action items

• Realignment task: rename every workspace package, import and import rule.