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
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 | grpc-advanced-resilience-c02 | xDS 시작 가드 | delivery-and-settlement-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:grpc-advanced-resilience-c02 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
grpc-advanced-resilience |
xDS 시작 가드
두 거절이 있고 javadoc 이 둘째를 더 중요하다고 적는다. 시작 차단 사유는 둘 — 능력이 사용 가능하지 않음, 그리고 애플리케이션이 재시도 정책을 함께 정의함.
본문
두 거절이 있고 javadoc 이 둘째를 더 중요하다고 적는다.
"xDS working in a deployment is not the same claim as the platform supporting it: it brings a control plane, its outage modes, its own security boundary and its own version skew, and the Stable support statement covers DNS and static targets. A support matrix that quietly widens is a support matrix nobody can rely on."
시작을 막는 두 사유
능력이 사용 가능하지 않음, 그리고 애플리케이션이 재시도 정책을 함께 정의함이다.
"with xDS the control plane owns it, and defining it in both places makes the winner depend on resolution order"
이 기록이 다루는 범위
:::evidence key="grpc-advanced-resilience-c02" alt="코드베이스에서 파일 목록을 만든 출력 16줄. 이 기록이 다루는 범위가 그 목록이다." caption="코드베이스 파일 목록 — 16줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
부트스트랩 대조가 보는 세 가지
xds_servers 선언, 통제 평면 채널의 TLS, 프로파일의 자원 이름공간이다.
"a client whose bootstrap names a namespace the deployment did not configure subscribes successfully and receives another team's routing. Nothing errors — the control plane answers, the resources parse, and traffic goes somewhere nobody chose."