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>
2.7 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-c10 | 두 트랜잭션 경계가 공존하고 문서만 어긋난다 | transaction-and-consistency-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c10 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa |
두 트랜잭션 경계가 공존하고 문서만 어긋난다
FullTransactionRetryCoordinator는 현재 runtime bean graph에 포함되는 구현이다. 그러나 그것을 실제 business/application code가 호출하는 경로는 확인되지 않았고, application-core transaction port 쪽이 canonical contract로 쓰인다.
본문
공개 어휘는 PersistenceOperationName, TransactionProfile, RetryProfile, JpaPersistenceException, TransactionCompletionEvidence다. JpaPlatformRuntimeAutoConfiguration은 PlatformTransactionManager가 있으면 SpringJpaTransactionExecutor bean을 만들고, 그 executor가 있으면 FullTransactionRetryCoordinator bean도 만든다. 따라서 source tree 수준에서는 단순 historical class가 아니라 현재 runtime bean graph에도 포함되는 구현이다.
그런데 호출하는 곳이 없다
repository production call search에서는 FullTransactionRetryCoordinator.execute(...)를 실제 business/application code가 호출하는 경로가 확인되지 않았다. 반대로 application-core transaction port는 sample/use-case/composition에서 canonical contract로 사용된다.
분석 원문의 경계 서술
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c10" alt="분석 문서 analysis/05-adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa.md 에서 이 기록의 근거 절을 그대로 잘라낸 15줄. 코드베이스를 측정한 것이 아니라 원본 판정이 무엇을 적었는지를 보여 준다." caption="analysis/05-adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa.md 발췌 — 15줄" zoom="true" :::
공존이 결함이 아닌 이유와 실제 문제
이 공존 자체는 곧바로 defect가 아니다. api/**는 intended external surface이므로 fork/application이 이 경로를 programmatically 사용할 수 있다. 문제는 문서가 두 boundary의 관계를 일관되게 설명하지 못하고, 일부 composition helper는 실제 type relationship과 다른 설명을 한다는 점이다.