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-persistence-jpa-c09 | 같은 leaf 안에 트랜잭션 모델이 둘 있다 | state-machines-and-ownership | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c09 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa |
같은 leaf 안에 트랜잭션 모델이 둘 있다
application-core가 소유한 canonical boundary와 이 leaf의 api/**가 소유한 boundary가 동시에 존재한다.
본문
현재 persistence-jpa에는 transaction을 표현하는 두 계열이 동시에 존재한다.
PolicyTransactionPort / TransactionPort
-> SpringTransactionPort (@Component)
-> SpringPolicyTransactionPort
-> PlatformTransactionManager
A의 어휘는 TransactionRequest, TransactionPolicyId, CallBudget, TransactionResult, TransactionOutcome, OperationId, TransactionPhase, ReconciliationReference다. 이 모델은 application-core가 소유한다 — use case가 outbound adapter type을 import하지 않아도 transaction policy와 uncertain outcome을 표현할 수 있다.
TransactionRequest 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c09" alt="코드베이스에서 TransactionRequest 를 검색한 출력 33줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="TransactionRequest 코드베이스 검색 — 33줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
B는 bean graph에 있고 호출자는 없다
B의 어휘는 PersistenceOperationName, TransactionProfile, RetryProfile, JpaPersistenceException, TransactionCompletionEvidence다. JpaPlatformRuntimeAutoConfiguration은 PlatformTransactionManager가 있으면 SpringJpaTransactionExecutor bean을 만들고, 그 executor가 있으면 FullTransactionRetryCoordinator bean도 만든다. 따라서 source tree 수준에서는 B가 단순 historical class가 아니라 현재 runtime bean graph에도 포함되는 구현이다. 그러나 repository production call search에서는 FullTransactionRetryCoordinator.execute(...)를 실제 business/application code가 호출하는 경로가 확인되지 않았다.
공존 자체는 결함이 아니다
반대로 application-core transaction port는 sample/use-case/composition에서 canonical contract로 사용된다. api/**는 intended external surface이므로 fork/application이 B를 programmatically 사용할 수 있다.