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 | adapter-inbound-graphql-c03 | 미배선 인터셉터는 누락이 아니라 중복이다 | composition-and-lifecycle-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-inbound-graphql-c03 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-inbound-graphql |
미배선 인터셉터는 누락이 아니라 중복이다
GraphQlOperationNameInterceptor.apply(...)(미배선)와 runtime/GraphQlOperationSelectionHandler(autoconf=2, 배선됨)가 같은 일을 하는데 배선된 쪽이 더 많이 한다.
본문
GraphQlOperationNameInterceptor.apply(...)(미배선)와 runtime/GraphQlOperationSelectionHandler(autoconf=2, 배선됨)가 같은 일을 한다. 배선된 쪽이 더 많이 한다: 익명 연산 거부 · 다중 연산 시 operationName 요구 · 연산 정체성 정규화가 전부 배선된 경로에 있다.
정규화가 거부가 아니라 익명으로 떨어지는 이유
규칙에 근거가 붙어 있다 — "any name that cannot survive normalisation becomes the anonymous identity rather than being rejected — a naming convention is not a reason to refuse an otherwise valid request."
GraphQlOperationNamePolicy 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-inbound-graphql-c03" alt="코드베이스에서 GraphQlOperationNamePolicy 를 검색한 출력 16줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="GraphQlOperationNamePolicy 코드베이스 검색 — 16줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
정책 객체까지 함께 미배선이다
따라서 미배선 인터셉터는 누락이 아니라 중복이다. 다만 그것이 쓰는 GraphQlOperationNamePolicy(85줄, 참조자 = 인터셉터와 자기 자신뿐)도 함께 미배선이고, 배선된 핸들러는 다른 정책 객체를 쓴다. §12.2.