DongHyeonkaandClaude Opus 5
b2963105a8
The keycloak project ended with four open questions that design could not
settle. A two-VM lab was built to answer them by measurement, and this is
that material: 26 experiments, 125 raw command outputs, 22 browser captures.
Follows the import procedure in README.md.
source/ the originating repository verbatim — 78 documents, 28 SVGs,
8 manifests, plus .source-revision recording the commit
final/ the SSOT
document.md 729 lines written from the 29 experiment documents, not
concatenated: what was predicted, what was measured, and
where the measurement itself was wrong
evidence/raw 125 outputs, flattened to <experiment>__<file> because
the originals collided (01-baseline.txt appeared three
times) and the audit only globs the top level
evidence/meta one per raw file; command and exitCode are null and the
README says why rather than inventing them
evidence/browser 22 captures
assets/ three diagrams through techviz
.techviz/ their VizSpecs
A separate project rather than an addition to keycloak: the B-layer answers
that project's four questions, but the A, C and D layers are about cluster
failure, SSO and operations, and one document.md should hold one subject.
The four question records there can point here through 관계.
Recorded rather than papered over: only three of the 28 diagrams were
remade. The repository forbids hand-drawn SVG and forbids titles inside the
canvas; all 28 originals carry both, so converting them is redrawing, not
reformatting. They stay in source/ and the gap is written into the document.
verify-pipeline.py passes. audit-records.py reports no issues.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
16 lines
1.0 KiB
Plaintext
16 lines
1.0 KiB
Plaintext
### 17.3 P3 — `markCommitted` 는 던지고 `markFailed` 는 조용히 넘어간다
|
|
|
|
```java
|
|
markCommitted → findById(...).orElseThrow(IllegalStateException…) // 청구 없으면 실패
|
|
markFailed → findById(...).ifPresent(entity -> …) // 청구 없으면 무동작
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
커밋 쪽의 근거는 자바독에 있다 — 청구 없이 커밋하면 변경은 내구적이고 보호받지 못한다.
|
|
|
|
실패 쪽에는 근거가 없다. 청구가 사라진 뒤 도착한 종결 실패가 아무 흔적도 남기지 않는다. 회수가 청구를 지운 뒤 원래 소유자가 실패를 기록하려는 경우가 그 형태다. 의도라면 그 이유를 자바독에 적어야 하고, 아니라면 커밋 쪽과 같게 다뤄야 한다.
|
|
|
|
### 확인된 설계(문제 아님)
|
|
|
|
- **유니크 제약을 애플리케이션 검사 대신 쓰기로 한 판단과 그 근거.**
|
|
- **커밋 행이 결과를 갖는다는 규칙을 record 와 DB 양쪽에 둔 것** — 마이그레이션·백필·지원 스크립트는 record 를 지나지 않는다.
|