docs: RFC 003: Language-independent Module Semantics & ABI

[aaronc]

Description

Closes: #XXXX

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
• included comments for documenting Go code
• updated the relevant documentation or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

[aaronc]

How would we deal with kv and memory stores with this model? I can think of these approaches:

• find some way to address distinct Store services for kv and memory stores
• add parameters to each request for the type of store
• decide not to support memory or transient stores at all

[aaronc]

One challenge with doing this as a streaming service is that the server just starts pushing all the data to the client and I'm not finding any obvious way to cancel a server stream. Maybe that's okay if usage is documented clearly, but it's quite different from our current pull based iterator approach

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[kocubinski]

Ok to merge this as is?

[aaronc]

I'm not sure we should merge this with the proto files. Instead the proto files should be code snippets in the RFC. I'll make this change before we merge

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.