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>
2.2 KiB
2.2 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-admin-runtime-c02 | 선언한 여섯 의존 중 셋이 import 0건이다 | composition-and-lifecycle-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:messaging-admin-runtime-c02 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
messaging-admin-runtime |
선언한 여섯 의존 중 셋이 import 0건이다
build.gradle이 여섯 project를 api로 선언하는데 실측 import는 셋이 0건이다. 지금까지 본 리프 중 가장 많다.
본문
build.gradle이 여섯 project를 api로 선언하는데 실측 import(EVD-308)는 셋이 0건이다. 지금까지 본 리프 중 가장 많다.
| 선언 | 패키지 | import | 판정 |
|---|---|---|---|
messaging-admin-api |
…messaging.admin |
45 | O |
messaging-core-api |
…messaging.api |
6 | O |
messaging-observability |
…messaging.observation |
1 | O |
messaging-policy |
…messaging.policy |
0 | X |
messaging-transport-spi |
…messaging.transport |
0 | X |
messaging-security |
…messaging.security |
0 | X |
MessagingAdminService 참조 위치
:::evidence key="messaging-admin-runtime-c02" alt="코드베이스에서 MessagingAdminService 를 검색한 출력 4줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="MessagingAdminService 코드베이스 검색 — 4줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
빈이 되는 것은 둘뿐이다
배선은 starter 한 곳뿐이고, 이 리프에서 빈이 되는 것은 둘이다(EVD-307). MessagingAdminService, ReplayService, RedriveService, DestructiveMessagingAdmin — 넷 다 빈이 없다. starter 는 그중 하나에 대해서만 이유를 밝힌다. 나머지 셋의 부재에 대한 설명은 어디에도 없다.