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
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
16 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
### 10.5 architecture suite / dependency registry
|
|
|
|
- `CleanArchitectureTest --rerun-tasks`: BUILD SUCCESSFUL
|
|
- `verifyCleanArchitectureDependencies`: BUILD SUCCESSFUL
|
|
|
|
이 둘은 source/package/project dependency constraint를 증명하며 diagnostics runtime failure나 PII behavior를 증명하지 않는다.
|
|
|
|
## 11. 역사적 형태
|
|
|
|
support README와 source는 initial repository부터 존재한다. 이후 architecture가 크게 성장하는 동안 support의 역할 설명 일부가 current implementation과 어긋났다.
|
|
|
|
특히 `OutboundHttpDependencyLogger`는 실제 historical class였다. 따라서 README의 해당 문장이 처음부터 허구였던 것은 아니다. 문제는 **class가 삭제된 이후 문서가 함께 이동하지 않았다는 것**이다.
|
|
|
|
또 messaging current source에는 logger failure를 business/publish failure와 분리하기 위해 `observeQuietly`가 도입된 과거 regression 설명이 남아 있다. 이 history는 notification consumer의 현재 shape와 비교할 때 중요한 evidence가 된다. 두 consumer가 같은 shared logger를 사용하지만 하나만 diagnostics를 non-authoritative로 격리한다.
|
|
|