Slate batch engine should separate planning and execution

Problem

The batch engine worked, but the structure was drifting toward “everything important lives in apply.ts”.

That made the code harder to review for the wrong reason:

• segment detection rules lived next to batch execution
• dirty-path math lived next to lifecycle dispatch
• the single-op apply entrypoint had to coexist with batch planner and executor details

The result was not semantic confusion. It was file-organization confusion.

Solution

Split the engine by role:

• packages/slate/src/core/apply.ts
  • normal single-op dispatch only
  • decides between ordinary apply and batched apply
• packages/slate/src/core/batching/planner.ts
  • batch segment kinds
  • specialized segment detection
  • batch planning rules
• packages/slate/src/core/batching/executor.ts
  • batched execution
  • dirty-path batching helpers
  • in-batch staged-op dispatch

That keeps the runtime model readable:

• apply.ts answers “which mode are we in?”
• batching/planner.ts answers “what shape of batch is this?”
• batching/executor.ts answers “how do we execute that shape?”

What mattered

The useful rule is simple:

• planner code should not live in the same file as executor code unless the planner is trivial

For this engine, the planner is not trivial anymore:

• same-parent insert
• same-parent move
• same-parent insert+move
• independent split
• independent merge
• generic fallback segments

Once those rules exist, burying them inside apply.ts just turns the file into a junk drawer.

Result

The runtime behavior stayed the same, but the call graph got easier to follow:

• apply.ts is small again
• the batch planner is isolated
• the dirty-path execution strategies are isolated
• review feedback can focus on behavior instead of file archaeology

Recommendation

Keep the split.

If the batch engine grows again:

• add new segment rules to the planner
• add new execution strategies to the batch executor
• do not dump either back into apply.ts

apply.ts should stay boring. That is the point.