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>
2.8 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-support-c02 | FailOpenDependencyLogger는 실패 정책을 정하지 않는다 | observability-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-support-c02 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-support |
FailOpenDependencyLogger는 실패 정책을 정하지 않는다
이 logger는 retry, recovery, fallback을 수행하지 않는다. 실패 정책을 결정하는 주체가 아니라 이미 결정된 fail-open outcome을 관측하는 기술 seam이다.
본문
logSuccess(...)는 DEBUG로 다음을 기록한다.
- dependency_name
- dependency_type
- operation
- outcome=
SUCCESS - correlation_id
logFailure(...)는 WARN으로 outcome=FAILURE와 error=<exception simple class>: <cause.getMessage()>를 추가한다. README와 javadoc은 WARN을 선택한 이유를 "optional fail-open dependency가 실패해도 core use case 자체는 성공했기 때문"이라고 설명한다.
판정과 기록이 갈리는 자리
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-support-c02-diagram" alt="fail-open 판정에서 use case 결과와 로거로 각각 화살표가 나가고 로거에서 돌아오는 화살표는 없는 구조" caption="판정과 기록의 갈림" zoom="false" :::
이 logger 자체는 retry, recovery, fallback을 수행하지 않는다. 실패 정책을 결정하는 주체가 아니라 이미 결정된 fail-open outcome을 관측하는 기술 seam이다.
FailOpenDependencyLogger 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-support-c02" alt="코드베이스에서 FailOpenDependencyLogger 를 검색한 출력 34줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="FailOpenDependencyLogger 코드베이스 검색 — 34줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
실제로 support를 import하는 네 파일
repository-wide production reference scan에서 support package를 직접 import하는 current production files는 네 개뿐이었다 — MessagingConfig, OutboundMessagePublisher, NotificationConfig, FailOpenNotificationProvider. 반대로 support README가 "공유 consumer"로 설명하는 cache-redis, httpclient는 Gradle dependency는 유지하지만 support production type을 직접 참조하지 않는다. 이 차이는 §8에서 별도로 다룬다.