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>
2.3 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 | application-core-c11 | adapter까지 있고 호출자가 없는 교정 경로 | delivery-and-settlement-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:application-core-c11 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
application-core |
adapter까지 있고 호출자가 없는 교정 경로
package-level reachability는 모두 확인됐고 legacy surface도 dead가 아니지만, notification admin의 원자적 claim()은 구현까지 있고 application service consumer가 없다.
관계
- legacy storage/notification compatibility surface의 제거 조건 추적 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
본문
static production reference scan에서 주요 application package는 모두 외부 production consumer를 확인했다. 이 count는 "모든 type이 각각 호출된다"는 의미가 아니라 package-level runtime/repository reachability의 evidence다. 세부 파일은 evidence/raw/013-application-core-reachability.txt에 보존했다.
NotificationPort 참조 위치
:::evidence key="application-core-c11" alt="코드베이스에서 NotificationPort 를 검색한 출력 17줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="NotificationPort 코드베이스 검색 — 17줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
legacy surface를 무조건 dead로 분류하지 않았다
application.storage.ObjectStoragePort, root notification NotificationPort, NotificationVariablesCodecPort, old idempotency-related exception 등은 adapter/config/characterization path에서 실제 reference가 남아 있다. 현재 상태는 dead code가 아니라 migration/compatibility surface다.
이번 scope에서 가장 중요한 reachability finding
반대로 notification admin atomic claim()은 adapter 구현까지 존재하지만 application service consumer가 없는 unwired corrective path로 판정했다.