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>
2.7 KiB
kind, slug, title, topic, project, status, sourceRevision, rootTreeNode, evidenceCapturedOn, assets, evidence, source, module
| kind | slug | title | topic | project | status | sourceRevision | rootTreeNode | evidenceCapturedOn | assets | evidence | source | module | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONCEPT | adapter-inbound-web-c01 | 상호배타성이 프로퍼티가 아니라 타입에서 온다 | capability-and-disclosure-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-inbound-web-c01 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-inbound-web |
상호배타성이 프로퍼티가 아니라 타입에서 온다
MVC와 WebFlux 자동설정 둘 다 matchIfMissing = true로 기본 켜짐이다. 두 아티팩트가 클래스패스에 함께 있어도 하나만 활성화되는 이유는 프로퍼티가 아니라 @ConditionalOnWebApplication의 타입 조건이다.
본문
두 자동설정의 게이트는 이렇게 붙어 있다.
MVC: @ConditionalOnWebApplication(SERVLET) + @ConditionalOnProperty(backend.web.mvc.enabled, matchIfMissing = true)
WebFlux: @ConditionalOnWebApplication(REACTIVE) + @ConditionalOnProperty(backend.web.webflux.enabled, matchIfMissing = true)
둘 다 matchIfMissing = true — 기본 켜짐이다. notification·messaging·cache-redis가 전부 matchIfMissing = false(옵트인)인 것과 반대인데, 이유가 다르다: 저쪽은 선택적 능력이고 이쪽은 웹 애플리케이션의 본체다.
활성화를 가르는 것
:::evidence key="adapter-inbound-web-c01-diagram" alt="웹 애플리케이션 타입에서 MVC 자동설정과 WebFlux 자동설정으로 각각 화살표가 나가고 화살표에 SERVLET 과 REACTIVE 가 붙은 구조" caption="타입이 고르는 자동설정" zoom="false" :::
상호배타성은 프로퍼티가 아니라 @ConditionalOnWebApplication의 타입 수준에서 온다 — "a reactive application cannot accidentally activate the servlet filters even if both artifacts are on the classpath."
등록되는 빈 수
두 자동설정이 등록하는 빈은 MVC 12개, WebFlux 11개다. AutoConfiguration.imports에는 이 둘만 있다.
분석 원문의 게이트 비교
:::evidence key="adapter-inbound-web-c01" alt="분석 문서 analysis/14-adapter-inbound-web.md 에서 이 기록의 근거 절을 그대로 잘라낸 15줄. 코드베이스를 측정한 것이 아니라 원본 판정이 무엇을 적었는지를 보여 준다." caption="analysis/14-adapter-inbound-web.md 발췌 — 15줄" zoom="true" :::