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>
2.1 KiB
2.1 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 | adapter-inbound-web-c19 | 상속으로 강제하는 계약과 태스크 그래프로 강제하는 계약 | identity-and-value-contracts | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-inbound-web-c19 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-inbound-web |
상속으로 강제하는 계약과 태스크 그래프로 강제하는 계약
같은 "계약 강제"라는 이름 아래 두 가지 다른 장치가 있다. notification 쪽은 상속에 의존해 강제가 없고, web 쪽은 소스셋과 dependsOn 태스크 그래프로 강제하며 빠진 것을 잡는 장치까지 갖는다.
본문
같은 "계약 강제"라는 이름 아래 두 가지 다른 장치가 있다.
notification ProviderAdapterContract |
web WebBudgetContract 외 6종 |
|
|---|---|---|
| 강제 수단 | 상속(강제 없음) | 소스셋 + dependsOn 태스크 그래프 |
| 실제 적용 | 8종 중 3종 | 세 런타임 전부 |
| 빠진 것을 잡는 장치 | 없음 | webCrossStackParityTest가 세 기록을 비교하고, 하나라도 없으면 실패 |
빠진 것을 잡는 장치가 왜 필요한가
web 쪽이 구조적으로 우월하다. build.gradle이 그 이유를 적는다 — "a parity check that compares whatever happens to be present would report agreement across a matrix with a hole in it."
분석 원문의 비교 표
:::evidence key="adapter-inbound-web-c19" alt="분석 문서 analysis/14-adapter-inbound-web.md 에서 이 기록의 근거 절을 그대로 잘라낸 15줄. 코드베이스를 측정한 것이 아니라 원본 판정이 무엇을 적었는지를 보여 준다." caption="analysis/14-adapter-inbound-web.md 발췌 — 15줄" zoom="true" :::