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>
3.2 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-cache-redis-c13 | 등록되지 않은 스크립트는 서버에 닿을 방법이 없다 | transaction-and-consistency-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-cache-redis-c13 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-cache-redis |
등록되지 않은 스크립트는 서버에 닿을 방법이 없다
RedisScriptRegistry가 등록을 배포 단계로 두고, 트랜잭션 창은 감시 키에서 정한 노드에 고정된다.
본문
RedisScriptRegistry의 규칙 — "Registration is a deployment step, not a request-time one. A script that was never registered has no digest and therefore no way to reach the server, which is what makes 'only reviewed scripts run' a structural property rather than a convention." 같은 identity에 다른 body를 등록하면 거부하고, 실행 시점에도 body가 등록본과 같은지 다시 본다.
등록과 실행의 분리
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-cache-redis-c13-diagram" alt="배포 시 스크립트 등록과 digest 대조와 EVALSHA 실행이 왼쪽에서 오른쪽으로 이어지는 구조" caption="등록과 실행의 분리" zoom="false" :::
README가 주장하는 복구 사슬 EVALSHA → NOSCRIPT → SCRIPT LOAD → digest verify → EVALSHA는 실재한다 — LettuceRedisScriptOperations:26 javadoc이 "NOSCRIPT is the one failure retried automatically"라고 적고, :129-133이 RedisNoScriptException 또는 메시지 접두 NOSCRIPT를 잡아 :100에서 registry.forget(script.id())를 호출한다. 다음 호출이 digest(...)에서 다시 SCRIPT LOAD한다.
RedisScriptRegistry 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-cache-redis-c13" alt="코드베이스에서 RedisScriptRegistry 를 검색한 출력 7줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="RedisScriptRegistry 코드베이스 검색 — 7줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
Cluster에서 MULTI 창을 노드에 고정하는 방법
RedisTransactionRunner는 Cluster에서의 MULTI 문제를 정면으로 다룬다. javadoc이 문제와 해법을 적는다 — 다른 레인은 명령마다 슬롯 소유 노드로 라우팅하는데 "that is exactly what a MULTI window must not do: the queued commands would be spread across nodes and none of them would be part of the same window." 해법은 연결이 아니라 라우팅 결정이었다 — 감시 키(또는 명시적 슬롯 태그)에서 노드를 정해 레인을 고정한다.
감시 키가 없는 Cluster 트랜잭션을 거부하는 이유
"the keys the callback will queue are not known until the callback runs, which is after the window is open."