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>
2.5 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-outbound-persistence-jpa-c28 | KeysetPredicateBuilder가 만드는 것은 사전식 술어다 | query-and-pagination-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c28 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa |
KeysetPredicateBuilder가 만드는 것은 사전식 술어다
KeysetPredicateBuilder는 conjunction이 아니라 lexicographic predicate를 만든다. 그래서 (Instant, UUID)처럼 term type이 다르고 direction도 다른 ordering을 표현할 수 있다.
본문
KeysetPredicateBuilder는 conjunction이 아니라 lexicographic predicate를 만든다.
커서 뒤가 뜻하는 조건
(createdAt ASC, id DESC)라면 cursor 뒤는 개념적으로 이렇다.
createdAt > cursorTime
OR
(createdAt = cursorTime AND id < cursorId)
현재 KeysetTerm<T>는 각 term마다 expression, cursor value, direction을 가진다. 그래서 (Instant, UUID)처럼 term type이 다르고 direction도 다른 ordering을 표현할 수 있다. source history에는 과거 one-type/one-direction API가 mixed order에서 rows를 skip/repeat했던 이유가 주석으로 남아 있고, 현재 code/test는 이를 보완했다.
KeysetPredicateBuilder 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c28" alt="코드베이스에서 KeysetPredicateBuilder 를 검색한 출력 3줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="KeysetPredicateBuilder 코드베이스 검색 — 3줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
마지막 term의 유일성은 타입이 아니라 호출자 계약이다
builder는 "마지막 term이 unique tie-breaker여야 한다"고 문서화하지만 runtime에서 uniqueness를 증명할 metadata는 받지 않는다. 따라서 uniqueness는 caller/registry contract다. 현재 evidence만으로 이를 defect라 단정하지 않는다. platform이 이를 fail-closed invariant로 승격하려면 unique-key metadata까지 contract에 포함해야 한다.