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
### 17.2 P3 — 낙관적 잠금 컬럼이 없어 전이 가드가 메모리 안에만 있다
|
|
|
|
`requireInProgress()` 가 두 번째 종결 전이를 막는다. 그 가드는 한 영속성 컨텍스트 안의 인스턴스 상태에만 적용된다. 엔티티에 `@Version` 이 없으므로 두 트랜잭션이 같은 행을 읽어 각각 전이하면 나중 쓰기가 앞의 것을 덮는다.
|
|
|
|
DB 의 세 CHECK 제약은 행의 모양을 지키지 지 전이 순서를 지키지 않는다. `COMMITTED` 행이 다른 결과 참조로 갱신되는 것을 막는 제약이 없다.
|
|
|
|
청구가 배타적이라는 설계 전제 아래서는 도달성이 낮다. 다만 §17.1 을 고치면 이 전제가 실제로 성립하는지가 함께 확인되어야 한다.
|
|
|
|
### 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
|
|
```
|
|
|