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>
2.8 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 | adapter-outbound-support-c04 | 직접 참조 0이지만 broad component scan으로 도달한다 | state-machines-and-ownership | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-support-c04 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-support |
직접 참조 0이지만 broad component scan으로 도달한다
OutboundSupportConfig는 @Configuration이며 FailOpenDependencyLogger bean 하나만 제공한다. support 밖 production Java에서 명시적으로 참조하는 파일은 0개지만 현재 active scanned path다.
본문
OutboundSupportConfig는 @Configuration이며 FailOpenDependencyLogger bean 하나만 제공한다. 별도 master property condition은 없다 — support 자체를 optional capability로 취급하지 않고, 실제 provider/client capability의 on/off를 sibling adapter가 소유하게 하려는 구조다.
OutboundSupportConfig 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-support-c04" alt="코드베이스에서 OutboundSupportConfig 를 검색한 출력 3줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="OutboundSupportConfig 코드베이스 검색 — 3줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
참조 0인데도 unwired가 아닌 이유
OutboundSupportConfig를 support 밖 production Java에서 명시적으로 참조하는 파일은 0개다. 그러나 실제 composition root CaSkeletonApplication은 dev.caskeleton.adapter를 broad component scan한다. AUTO_CONFIGURED_PACKAGES exclusion에는 messaging/notification/persistence 등은 들어가지만 support package는 포함되지 않으므로 support config는 broad component scan으로 도달한다. registry도 support runtime membership을 app-bootstrap으로 선언하고 app-bootstrap/build.gradle이 support project를 직접 implementation한다. 따라서 이 configuration은 현재 active scanned path다.
master switch 누락으로 판정하지 않은 이유
support config 자체에는 @ConditionalOnProperty가 없고 @ConditionalOnMissingBean만 있다. support는 provider/client를 생성하지 않고 logger bean 하나만 default로 제공한다. 실제 messaging/notification/httpclient 등은 자기 capability root에서 activation을 소유한다. support README와 config javadoc 모두 이 비대칭을 의도적으로 설명한다.