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 | adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c21 | 이름이 비슷한 두 번역 계열의 출력 계약이 다르다 | transaction-and-consistency-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c21 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa |
이름이 비슷한 두 번역 계열의 출력 계약이 다르다
이 scope에는 이름이 비슷한 두 translation mechanism이 있다. 같은 이름 영역을 다루지만 current evidence로는 competing duplicate implementation이 아니다.
본문
이 scope에는 이름이 비슷한 두 translation mechanism이 있다.
PersistenceFailureTranslatorChain은 raw persistence/provider failure를 받아 JpaPersistenceException 계층을 내놓고, SpringJpaTransactionExecutor와 retry semantics가 소비한다. 목적은 SQLSTATE/optimistic conflict를 retry/completion semantics에 필요한 stable persistence failure로 바꾸는 것이다.
분석 원문의 두 계열 비교
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c21" alt="분석 문서 analysis/05-adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa.md 에서 이 기록의 근거 절을 그대로 잘라낸 15줄. 코드베이스를 측정한 것이 아니라 원본 판정이 무엇을 적었는지를 보여 준다." caption="analysis/05-adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa.md 발췌 — 15줄" zoom="true" :::
중복 구현이 아니라 출력 계약이 다르다
다른 하나의 consumer는 adapter/application error boundary 쪽이다. 따라서 동일 이름 영역을 다루지만 current evidence로는 competing duplicate implementation이 아니다. transaction retry algebra와 platform operational error mapping이라는 서로 다른 output contract를 가진다. PostgreSQL vendor translator와 exact SQLSTATE catalog correctness는 vendor sub-scope에서 계속 검증한다.