Re: LLM Experiments, Part 1: Corrections

[Psionic K <psionik@positron.solutions>]

>  I'm not sure how
> the centralized storage reduces the coupling to the process. But
> if I'm reading this correctly, it seems like an argument for using
> state machines with the centralized storage acting as a driver for
> state changes, which may be a good way to think about this.

If you start by having a callback closure waiting on each individual
request, you don't want these callbacks to perform reconciliation
between one another.  It's too much logic in every callback.  A single
handler should reconcile results and decide if the callback closure of
that specific message is still valid to be called.

For example, the user sends two requests, each with a logical
timestamp (a counter).  The second one gets back first.  Should we
even handle the first or throw it away?  Sometimes this can only be
decided with knowledge of all the requests that I made.  Rather than
make the callbacks smart, it's usually better to first try to
reconcile what you receive with everything you sent.  You might need
to wait for more output before sending the next input.  This would
require the callback to know about past and future messages and what
to do with them.  You want to decouple reconciliation with handling
reconciled outputs.