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>
2.6 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-outbound-cache-redis-c08 | 한쪽에만 적용되는 변경이 구조적으로 불가능하다 | state-machines-and-ownership | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-cache-redis-c08 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-cache-redis |
한쪽에만 적용되는 변경이 구조적으로 불가능하다
ValueOperationRequests의 javadoc이 불변식을 적고, 두 구현이 같은 builder를 생성자에서 만들면서 그것을 구조로 보장한다.
본문
ValueOperationRequests의 javadoc이 불변식을 적는다 — "Both the blocking and the reactive string operations call exactly these methods, so a change to a permit, a budget, an encoding, or a command choice cannot apply to one API and not the other."
두 모델이 공유하는 빌더
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-cache-redis-c08-diagram" alt="공유 request builder 에서 동기 표면과 반응형 표면으로 각각 화살표가 나가고 화살표에 같은 요청 객체가 붙은 구조" caption="두 모델이 공유하는 빌더" zoom="false" :::
구조가 그것을 보장한다. LettuceRedisValueOperations와 LettuceReactiveRedisValueOperations는 둘 다 생성자에서 new ValueOperationRequests(gateway, context, counters)를 만들고, 차이는 SyncRedisCommandExecutor vs ReactiveRedisCommandExecutor 하나뿐이다.
ValueOperationRequests 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-cache-redis-c08" alt="코드베이스에서 ValueOperationRequests 를 검색한 출력 10줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="ValueOperationRequests 코드베이스 검색 — 10줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
열한 계열 전부에서 확인했다
각 메서드는 executor.execute(requests.xxx(...)) 한 줄이고, reactive 쪽은 그 위에 flatMap/then 같은 형태 변환만 얹는다. Value·Hash·List·Set·SortedSet·Key·Geo·Bitmap·Stream·HyperLogLog·PubSub 모두 sync와 reactive 양쪽이 같은 *OperationRequests를 생성한다(162-... §8.2).