And so the `put`ting component will only submit its own `(component ID, port ID, metadata_for_sync_round)` triplet. The `get`ting port will submit information containing `(self component ID, self port ID, peer component ID, peer port ID, metadata_for_sync_round)`. The consensus algorithm can now figure out which two ports belong to the same channel.

## Component Nomenclature

Earlier versions of the Reowolf runtime featured the distinction between primitive and composite components. This was put into the language from a design perspective. Primitive components could do nitty-gritty protocol execution: perform `put`/`get` operations, and entering into sync blocks. Conversely, composite components were tasked with setting up a network of interconnected components: creating channels and handing off the appropriate ports to the instantiated components.

Once the runtime was capable of sending ports over channels, it became apparent that this distinction no longer made sense. Because if only primitive components can send/receive ports, and cannot create new components, then the programmer is limited to using those received ports directly in the primitive's code! And so the split between primitive and composite components was removed: only the concept of a "component" is left.

- The TCP listener and TCP sender components have not been tested extensively in a multi-threaded setup.