feat: web, websocket 어댑터 추가 구현

docs/adr/ADR-WEB-ADV-003-openapi-32-remains-experimental.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# ADR-WEB-ADV-003: OpenAPI 3.2 is generated in parallel and stays experimental
+
+- Status: Accepted
+- Date: 2026-08-25
+- Scope: `adapter:inbound:web` — `advanced.openapi`
+
+## Context
+
+Advanced Task 17 adds an OpenAPI 3.2 generation lane beside the Stable 3.1.2 snapshot.
+
+Generating 3.2 is cheap. Adopting it is not, and the two get conflated because the generated
+document looks fine. The value of an API description is entirely in what consumes it, and a document
+in a version a client generator does not fully understand produces a client that compiles and is
+wrong — which is worse than no document at all.
+
+## Decision
+
+**3.1.2 remains the release artifact.** `OpenApiVersionLane.STABLE_3_1.releaseArtifact()` is true and
+`EXPERIMENTAL_3_2`'s is false. This is a property of the type, not a configuration setting.
+
+**Generating 3.2 must not change the 3.1 snapshot.** Both are produced from the same model, so a
+contributor that mutates it on the way to 3.2 changes the artifact that is actually shipped —
+silently, and only when the experimental lane runs. `OpenApi32CompatibilityReport` compares the
+snapshot hash before and after and makes a difference a promotion blocker.
+
+**Four kinds of tool are checked separately.** A parser reports structural errors; a linter applies
+style rules and accepts documents a parser rejects; a generator produces client code, and this is
+where an unsupported construct surfaces — not as an error but as a method with the wrong signature;
+a compile of that generated code is the only step that catches it. "OpenAPI 3.2 works" is not a
+statement anybody can make. "This document is read correctly by these four tools at these versions"
+is.
+
+**Promotion requires an accepted ADR regardless of how green the matrix is.**
+`promotionBlockers(false)` always contains that blocker. A machine-checkable matrix cannot decide
+whether the consumer population is ready.
+
+**Streaming description differences are reported separately.** They are the substantive difference
+between the two versions for this application, and folding them into a pass/fail hides what
+changed.
+
+## Consequences
+
+- The 3.2 document is published as an artifact of the experimental workflow, never of the release
+  workflow.
+- A client generator that only understands 3.1 is unaffected, which is the point.
+- Adopting 3.2 later is a documented decision with a named consumer matrix behind it.
+
+## Alternatives considered
+
+- **Switch to 3.2 and keep a 3.1 downgrade.** Rejected: the downgrade is lossy in exactly the
+  constructs 3.2 was wanted for, so it would ship a description that is wrong for both audiences.
+- **Generate only 3.2 and let consumers cope.** Rejected: the failure mode is a generated client
+  that compiles and misbehaves.
+- **Skip the client-compile step in the matrix.** Rejected: it is the only one that catches the
+  failure the others miss.