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-schema-api-c06 | 의도적으로 스레드 안전하지 않은 타입이 하나 있다 | state-machines-and-ownership | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:messaging-schema-api-c06 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
messaging-schema-api |
의도적으로 스레드 안전하지 않은 타입이 하나 있다
BoundedByteSink는 의도적으로 thread-safe가 아니다 — javadoc이 명시하고 codec들이 매 encode 호출마다 새로 만든다.
관계
- port 계약은 동시성 요구를 적는다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
- 도달성 판정은 단어가 아니라 import로 확인한다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
본문
BoundedByteSink가 의도적으로 thread-safe가 아니다. javadoc이 명시한다 — "Not thread-safe, and not meant to be: an instance belongs to a single encode call." 실제로 codec들이 매 encode 호출마다 새로 만든다.
BoundedByteSink 참조 위치
:::evidence key="messaging-schema-api-c06" alt="코드베이스에서 BoundedByteSink 를 검색한 출력 15줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="BoundedByteSink 코드베이스 검색 — 15줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
불변인 것과 상태가 없는 것
EncodedMessage, MessageContractKey, SchemaReference는 불변이다. SchemaCompatibilityValidator는 registry 참조만 갖고 상태가 없다.
이 리프가 규정하지 않는 것
MessageCodecRegistry/SchemaRegistry 구현의 스레드 안전성은 이 leaf가 규정하지 않는다 — port javadoc에 그에 대한 요구가 없다. 이것은 §17의 P3 항목이다.