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>
2.9 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-c11 | Spring stereotype이 있다고 runtime에 도달하지 않는다 | transaction-and-consistency-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c11 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa |
Spring stereotype이 있다고 runtime에 도달하지 않는다
root CaSkeletonApplication이 persistence package를 broad scan에서 의도적으로 제외하므로, adapter leaf 내부의 @Component가 자동으로 등록되지 않는다. SpringTransactionPort는 JpaAdapterComponentsConfig의 narrow component scan으로 등록된다.
본문
SpringTransactionPort는 PolicyTransactionPort를 구현하며 JpaAdapterComponentsConfig의 narrow component scan으로 등록된다. 이 wiring은 중요하다 — root CaSkeletonApplication은 persistence package를 broad scan에서 의도적으로 제외한다. 그래서 adapter leaf 내부의 @Component를 "annotation이 있으니 알아서 등록될 것"이라고 볼 수 없다.
SpringTransactionPort 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c11" alt="코드베이스에서 SpringTransactionPort 를 검색한 출력 11줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="SpringTransactionPort 코드베이스 검색 — 11줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
이 배치를 만든 과거 회귀
JpaAdapterComponentsConfig source에 기록돼 있다. persistence package를 broad scan에서 제외했고, SpringTransactionPort 같은 component를 별도 scan하지 않았다. 처음 transaction port가 필요한 capability가 조립될 때 unsatisfied dependency로 드러났고, 해결은 JPA master switch 아래에서만 persistence adapter package를 narrow scan하는 것이었다. current root는 PersistenceJpaRootAutoConfiguration -> JpaAdapterComponentsConfig -> component scan 체인을 통해 이를 해결한다.
inRootWrite가 inWrite와 다른 지점
inWrite와 inRootWrite 둘 다 REQUIRED · READ_COMMITTED · read-only false로 매핑된다. 특히 vendor default isolation에 맡기지 않고 READ_COMMITTED를 명시한다. 그런데 inRootWrite는 시작 전에 TransactionSynchronizationManager.isActualTransactionActive()를 확인해 ambient physical transaction이 있으면 manager/action 호출 전에 거부한다. "root boundary"를 REQUIRED의 join semantics로 조용히 바꾸지 않는다.