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>
2.0 KiB
2.0 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-web-c12 | compileOnly로 막았지만 컨버터를 등록하는 코드도 없다 | composition-and-lifecycle-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-inbound-web-c12 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-inbound-web |
compileOnly로 막았지만 컨버터를 등록하는 코드도 없다
build.gradle이 XML·CBOR 백엔드를 compileOnly로 두는 이유는 명확하고 의도된 설계다. 그런데 배포가 그 백엔드를 추가하더라도 메시지 컨버터를 등록하는 코드가 없다.
본문
build.gradle이 두 백엔드를 compileOnly로 두고 그 이유를 길게 적는다(§2) — implementation이었을 때 "silently began parsing application/xml request bodies... an XXE surface nobody chose"였기 때문이다. 의도된 설계다.
WebXmlMapperFactory 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-inbound-web-c12" alt="코드베이스에서 WebXmlMapperFactory 를 검색한 출력 4줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="WebXmlMapperFactory 코드베이스 검색 — 4줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
백엔드를 추가해도 등록하는 코드가 없다
그 잭슨 백엔드를 배포가 추가하더라도 메시지 컨버터를 등록하는 코드가 없다. WebXmlMapperFactory·WebCborMapperFactory·RepresentationNegotiationPolicy를 참조하는 파일은 자기 패키지와 테스트뿐이고, 두 자동설정(MVC 12빈 · WebFlux 11빈)에도 없다. WebRepresentation.available()이 "absent backend를 문장으로 바꾼다"는 장치는 그 문장을 낼 호출자가 없다.