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>
58 lines
2.9 KiB
Markdown
58 lines
2.9 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
kind: CONCEPT
|
|
slug: messaging-spring-cloud-stream-bridge-c02
|
|
title: Spring Cloud Stream 브리지가 Spring을 import하지 않는다
|
|
topic: delivery-and-settlement-models
|
|
project: clean-architecture-backend-template
|
|
status: 게시 전
|
|
sourceRevision: 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916
|
|
rootTreeNode: concept:messaging-spring-cloud-stream-bridge-c02
|
|
evidenceCapturedOn: 2026-09-01
|
|
assets:
|
|
- key: messaging-spring-cloud-stream-bridge-c02
|
|
file: ../../../final/evidence/rendered/messaging-spring-cloud-stream-bridge-c02.svg
|
|
evidence:
|
|
- ../../../final/evidence/raw/messaging-spring-cloud-stream-bridge-c02.txt
|
|
source:
|
|
- 원본 분석 절은 analysis/messaging/messaging-spring-cloud-stream-bridge.md#L86 이다.
|
|
module: messaging-spring-cloud-stream-bridge
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Spring Cloud Stream 브리지가 Spring을 import하지 않는다
|
|
|
|
선언된 것과 쓰이는 것이 다르다. grep -rn 'import dev.caskeleton.messaging.transport\|import org.springframework' → exit 1.
|
|
|
|
## 관계
|
|
|
|
- **허용 의존 목록은 상한이므로 미사용을 잡지 않는다**
|
|
같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
|
|
- **등록을 받는 컴포넌트는 해제도 제공한다**
|
|
같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
|
|
- **함께 읽히는 두 맵은 한 값으로 묶는다**
|
|
같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
|
|
- **에러 메시지가 지시하는 설정은 그 설정을 읽는 코드와 함께 존재해야 한다**
|
|
같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
|
|
- **한 개념의 등록 상태를 두 객체가 나눠 갖지 않는다**
|
|
같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
|
|
|
|
## 본문
|
|
|
|
<!-- body:start -->
|
|
|
|
**선언된 것과 쓰이는 것이 다르다.** `grep -rn 'import dev.caskeleton.messaging.transport\|import org.springframework'` → exit 1.
|
|
|
|
## SpringCloudStreamPublisherBridge 참조 위치
|
|
|
|
:::evidence key="messaging-spring-cloud-stream-bridge-c02" alt="코드베이스에서 SpringCloudStreamPublisherBridge 를 검색한 출력 10줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="SpringCloudStreamPublisherBridge 코드베이스 검색 — 10줄 · exit 0" zoom="true"
|
|
:::
|
|
|
|
## 바인더 접촉면이 두 함수형 인터페이스뿐이다
|
|
|
|
`SpringCloudStreamPublisherBridge.ChannelSend`와 `SpringCloudStreamConsumerBridge.BridgedHandler`. javadoc이 그 목적을 적는다 — "isolated so the bridge is testable without a binder". 즉 **`spring-context` 의존은 실제 통합 코드가 있어야 필요했을 것**인데 그 코드가 없다. §12.4.
|
|
|
|
## 삼중 정합
|
|
|
|
나가는 것이 없다 — 어떤 leaf의 `allowed_dependencies`에도 이 leaf가 없고 starter 목록에도 없다. 런타임 배선 없음, `runtime_memberships: []`, bean 없음. **소비자 0 · membership `[]` · 조립 0의 삼중 정합** — `messaging-kafka-share-experimental`·`messaging-schema-avro`와 같은 상태다.
|
|
|
|
<!-- body:end -->
|