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
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-outbox-jdbc-postgresql-c02 | starter가 만들지 않는 셋은 애플리케이션이 직접 등록해야 한다 | transaction-and-consistency-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:messaging-outbox-jdbc-postgresql-c02 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
messaging-outbox-jdbc-postgresql |
starter가 만들지 않는 셋은 애플리케이션이 직접 등록해야 한다
JdbcOutboxRepository, OutboxEnvelopeFactory, JdbcAdminOperationJournal 셋은 starter가 만들지 않는다. 애플리케이션이 DataSource/ProducerId를 알고 직접 등록해야 한다.
본문
testcontainers 주석이 이 리프의 성격을 요약한다 — "신뢰성 패턴은 트랜잭션 경계와 유일성 제약에 대한 주장이고, 그것을 결판낼 수 있는 것은 실제 데이터베이스뿐이다." 그리고 그 레인이 실제로 돈다(§10).
JdbcOutboxRepository 참조 위치
:::evidence key="messaging-outbox-jdbc-postgresql-c02" alt="코드베이스에서 JdbcOutboxRepository 를 검색한 출력 5줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="JdbcOutboxRepository 코드베이스 검색 — 5줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
starter가 만들지 않는 셋
JdbcOutboxRepository, OutboxEnvelopeFactory, JdbcAdminOperationJournal(EVD-312). 셋 다 애플리케이션이 DataSource/ProducerId 를 알고 직접 등록해야 한다.
기본 저널이 프로덕션에서 거부되는 이유
AdminOperationJournal 의 기본값은 InMemoryAdminOperationJournal 이며, 프로덕션 프로파일에서는 MessagingAdminDurabilityValidator 가 그것을 거부한다(analysis/messaging/messaging-admin-runtime.md §4.4 참조).