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>
1.8 KiB
1.8 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-admin-runtime-c04 | 파괴적 작업에는 실행 경로가 없다 | delivery-and-settlement-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:messaging-admin-runtime-c04 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
messaging-admin-runtime |
파괴적 작업에는 실행 경로가 없다
경로 A — 리드라이브 (설계상 의도된 흐름) 경로 B — 토폴로지 검증 Stack A 는 validateTopology() 로 진입해 보고서를 돌려준다. 그 보고서로 requireAcceptable() 을 부르는 코드는 없다.
본문
경로 A — 리드라이브 가 설계상 의도된 흐름이다.
경로 B — 토폴로지 검증
Stack A 는 validateTopology() 로 진입해 보고서를 돌려준다. 그 보고서로 requireAcceptable() 을 부르는 코드는 없다. Stack B 는 validate(...) 안에서 직접 던진다. 둘 다 프로덕션 진입점이 없다(EVD-307).
DestructiveMessagingAdmin 참조 위치
:::evidence key="messaging-admin-runtime-c04" alt="코드베이스에서 DestructiveMessagingAdmin 를 검색한 출력 3줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="DestructiveMessagingAdmin 코드베이스 검색 — 3줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
경로 C — 파괴적 작업
없다. DestructiveMessagingAdmin 구현체가 0건이므로 PURGE·OFFSET_RESET·DELETE_DESTINATION 은 이 저장소에 실행 경로가 없다.