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>
2.2 KiB
2.2 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 | messaging-inbox-jdbc-postgresql-c02 | starter가 셋을 만들고 InboxRepository는 그 목록에 없다 | transaction-and-consistency-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:messaging-inbox-jdbc-postgresql-c02 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
messaging-inbox-jdbc-postgresql |
starter가 셋을 만들고 InboxRepository는 그 목록에 없다
starter의 MessagingReliabilityAutoConfiguration이 세 bean을 만드는데 JdbcInboxRepository는 그 목록에 없다.
관계
- 컬럼 폭은 애플리케이션 검증과 짝을 이룬다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
- 같은 안전 규칙은 한 공식과 한 강제 시점을 갖는다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
본문
들어오는 것: messaging-core-api(api), messaging-reliability-api(api), spring-jdbc·spring-tx(implementation). 나가는 것: messaging-spring-boot-starter.
MessagingReliabilityAutoConfiguration 참조 위치
:::evidence key="messaging-inbox-jdbc-postgresql-c02" alt="코드베이스에서 MessagingReliabilityAutoConfiguration 를 검색한 출력 3줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="MessagingReliabilityAutoConfiguration 코드베이스 검색 — 3줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
만들어지는 것과 만들어지지 않는 것
배선됨. starter의 MessagingReliabilityAutoConfiguration이 셋을 만든다. JdbcInboxRepository는 그 목록에 없다 — InboxRepository bean을 누가 만드는지는 starter leaf가 답한다.
Spring 타입을 쓰는 두 곳
DataSourceUtils와 TransactionSynchronizationManager. 둘 다 implementation scope이고 public 시그니처에 나오지 않으므로 vendor api 규칙에 맞는다.