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>
2.1 KiB
2.1 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 | messaging-claim-check-c06 | MessageDigest를 호출마다 새로 만드는 것이 옳다 | state-machines-and-ownership | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:messaging-claim-check-c06 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
messaging-claim-check |
MessageDigest를 호출마다 새로 만드는 것이 옳다
ClaimCheckPublisher·ClaimCheckResolver는 final 필드만 갖는 불변 객체이고, MessageDigest.getInstance("SHA-256")은 호출마다 새 인스턴스를 만든다.
관계
- leaf의 각 public 클래스는 자기 레인에 테스트를 갖는다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
- 같은 튜닝 값이 두 계층에 있으면 어느 쪽이 이기는지 정한다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
본문
ClaimCheckPublisher·ClaimCheckResolver는 final 필드만 갖는 불변 객체다. ClaimCheckIntegrityGuard는 상태가 없고 ClaimCheckResolver가 인스턴스를 필드로 하나 만든다.
ClaimCheckPublisher 참조 위치
:::evidence key="messaging-claim-check-c06" alt="코드베이스에서 ClaimCheckPublisher 를 검색한 출력 12줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="ClaimCheckPublisher 코드베이스 검색 — 12줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
호출마다 새로 만드는 것이 옳은 이유
MessageDigest.getInstance("SHA-256")이 호출마다 새 인스턴스를 만든다 — MessageDigest는 스레드 안전하지 않으므로 이것이 옳다. 재사용했다면 동시 호출이 서로의 상태를 오염시킨다.
계약에 적히지 않은 요구
ClaimCheckStore 구현의 스레드 안전성 요구는 인터페이스 javadoc에 없다.