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>
2.3 KiB
2.3 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-outbound-notification-c03 | provider가 요청한 지연은 계산값보다 길 때만 채택되고 max에서 잘린다 | delivery-and-settlement-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-notification-c03 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-notification |
provider가 요청한 지연은 계산값보다 길 때만 채택되고 max에서 잘린다
Retry-After 힌트가 종단까지 도달하는 것을 확인했고, 그 힌트가 배달 기한을 늘릴 수 있는 경로는 없다.
본문
ProviderResults.retryAfter가 파싱한 값이 종단까지 도달하는지 추적했다. 도달한다 — NotificationDispatchService.java:381이 ProviderFailure::retryAfter로 넘기고, RetryBackoff.delay(:43-45)가 소비한다.
Duration computed = Duration.ofMillis(Math.max(jittered, base.toMillis()));
Duration chosen = retryAfter.filter(hint -> hint.compareTo(computed) > 0).orElse(computed);
return chosen.compareTo(max) > 0 ? max : chosen;
힌트는 계산값보다 길 때만 채택되고, 그 뒤 설정된 max(기본 5분)로 상한이 걸린다.
ProviderResults 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-notification-c03" alt="코드베이스에서 ProviderResults 를 검색한 출력 25줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="ProviderResults 코드베이스 검색 — 25줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
javadoc의 주장이 코드와 일치한다
"A provider-supplied Retry-After always wins over the computed value, but never over the configured maximum: a provider asking for an hour must not silently extend a delivery deadline." 악의적 provider가 큰 Retry-After 값으로 배달을 수십 년 뒤로 미루는 경로는 없다. §17.1의 AccessContext와 대조되는, 회로가 닫힌 사례다.