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-reliability-api-c02 | Outbox에 행을 쓰는 진입점이 없다 | state-machines-and-ownership | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:messaging-reliability-api-c02 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
messaging-reliability-api |
Outbox에 행을 쓰는 진입점이 없다
구현 leaf가 셋 있고 전부 배선되는데, ReliableMessagePublisher는 구현도 소비자도 0이다.
관계
- 계약만 담는 leaf도 계약의 거절 조건은 자기 레인에서 검증한다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
- record의
equals를 좁히면 이유를 적는다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다. - 호출 컨텍스트가 계약이면 그 컨텍스트를 검증할 수단을 함께 정한다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
본문
들어오는 것: messaging-core-api(api) 하나. 나가는 것: messaging-outbox-jdbc-postgresql, messaging-inbox-jdbc-postgresql, messaging-claim-check, messaging-spring-boot-starter.
ReliableMessagePublisher 참조 위치
:::evidence key="messaging-reliability-api-c02" alt="코드베이스에서 ReliableMessagePublisher 를 검색한 출력 1줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="ReliableMessagePublisher 코드베이스 검색 — 1줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
구현 leaf는 셋 다 배선되는데 진입점이 없다
구현 leaf가 셋 있고 전부 배선된다. ReliableMessagePublisher는 구현도 소비자도 0이다(§12.1). Outbox에 행을 쓰는 애플리케이션 측 진입점인데, 그 진입점이 없다. 이 leaf 자체는 Spring 주석을 갖지 않는다.