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>
3.1 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-outbox-jdbc-postgresql-c01 | 모르는 것을 실패로 취급하지 않는다 | transaction-and-consistency-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:messaging-outbox-jdbc-postgresql-c01 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
messaging-outbox-jdbc-postgresql |
모르는 것을 실패로 취급하지 않는다
트랜잭셔널 아웃박스의 PostgreSQL 구현이다. 이 리프의 축은 하나다 — 모호한 발행을 같은 메시지 id로 재시도한다.
본문
트랜잭셔널 아웃박스의 PostgreSQL 구현이다. 비즈니스 트랜잭션이 쓰고 릴레이가 배출한다. 이 리프의 축은 하나다: "모르는 것을 실패로 취급하지 않는다."
"The relay's correctness rests on one rule: an ambiguous publish is retried under the same message id. Minting a new id would turn a possibly-delivered message into a definitely-second message, and no downstream deduplication could recover from it. Marking it failed instead would lose a message the broker may already hold."
마지막 문장이 중요하다 — 릴레이는 at-least-once publication만 보장한다고 자기 상한을 스스로 명시한다.
이 리프가 아는 것과 모르는 것
:::evidence key="messaging-outbox-jdbc-postgresql-c01-diagram" alt="리프 경계 안에 발행 포트와 관계형 데이터베이스가 들어 있고 브로커와 스프링 컨텍스트가 경계 밖 점선 상자로 놓인 구조" caption="이 리프가 아는 것과 모르는 것" zoom="false" :::
경계: 브로커를 모른다(MessagePublisher 포트만 안다). 스프링 컨텍스트를 모른다(spring-jdbc/spring-tx 는 implementation 이며 트랜잭션 동기화 조회에만 쓴다). 배선은 starter 몫이다.
MessagePublisher 참조 위치
:::evidence key="messaging-outbox-jdbc-postgresql-c01" alt="코드베이스에서 MessagePublisher 를 검색한 출력 14줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="MessagePublisher 코드베이스 검색 — 14줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
파괴적 작업 저널이 같이 사는 이유
messaging-admin-api 의 파괴적 작업 저널 구현도 이 리프에 산다. build.gradle 이 그 이유를 적는다 — "The destructive-operation journal lives here because it needs exactly what the outbox needs: one relational database every replica can see, and a migration lane that already exists. The contract it implements belongs to the admin API."