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>
2.7 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 | application-core-c06 | 계약에 Kafka topic도 WebSocket도 나오지 않는다 | delivery-and-settlement-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:application-core-c06 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
application-core |
계약에 Kafka topic도 WebSocket도 나오지 않는다
messaging·realtime 계약이 semantic 정보만 담고 provider/transport 어휘를 밖으로 밀어내며, qualification은 evidence provenance property까지 요구한다.
관계
- legacy storage/notification compatibility surface의 제거 조건 추적 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
본문
messaging application contract catalog는 contract id, logical destination, schema resource, ordering, payload/envelope bounds, sensitivity, retry/requeue horizon 등 semantic 정보만 가진다. Kafka topic/provider runtime type은 public contract에 없다. validated integration event는 partition key, schema/content hash, catalog/binding revision 같은 immutable evidence를 보존한다.
이 기록이 다루는 범위
:::evidence key="application-core-c06" alt="코드베이스에서 파일 목록을 만든 출력 25줄. 이 기록이 다루는 범위가 그 목록이다." caption="코드베이스 파일 목록 — 25줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
qualification이 테스트 이름만으로는 통과하지 않는다
strict messagingApplicationContractQualificationTest는 normal test source set의 세 required class를 no-skip 조건으로 실행한다. 처음 digest property 없이 실행했을 때 prepareMessagingContractEvidence가 fail-closed로 거부했다. current source/archive, current application-core JAR, exact profile file의 SHA-256을 공급한 재실행에서는 15 tests, 0 skipped, BUILD SUCCESSFUL이었다. 즉 qualification은 evidence provenance property까지 요구한다.
realtime 계약이 accepted와 delivered를 구분한다
durable fanout과 ephemeral fanout을 분리한다. durable은 accepted와 delivered를 동일시하지 않고 stream+position dedupe/replay를 모델링한다. stale cursor는 resnapshot 요구로 분리된다. presence는 non-authoritative이며 TTL/heartbeat failure 시 empty로 degrade할 뿐 security 판단에 사용하지 않는다. logical channel은 WebSocket/STOMP 같은 transport 명칭을 소유하지 않는다.