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>
2.4 KiB
2.4 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-claim-check-c01 | 위협은 실패가 아니라 잘못된 성공이다 | state-machines-and-ownership | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:messaging-claim-check-c01 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
messaging-claim-check |
위협은 실패가 아니라 잘못된 성공이다
브로커 한계를 넘는 payload를 객체 저장소에 두고 메시지는 참조만 나른다. 위협 모델은 "decode perfectly into the wrong object"다.
관계
- leaf의 각 public 클래스는 자기 레인에 테스트를 갖는다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
- 같은 튜닝 값이 두 계층에 있으면 어느 쪽이 이기는지 정한다 같은 분석 리프에서 끌어낸 규칙이다.
본문
Claim Check 패턴 — 브로커 한계를 넘는 payload를 객체 저장소에 두고 메시지는 참조만 나른다. messaging-reliability-api의 ClaimCheckReference(storageKey·sizeBytes·sha256·expiresAt)를 값 타입으로 쓰고, 이 leaf가 그것을 만들고 검증하는 동작을 소유한다.
payload가 지나는 경로
:::evidence key="messaging-claim-check-c01-diagram" alt="payload 와 객체 저장소와 참조와 메시지가 왼쪽에서 오른쪽으로 이어지고 화살표마다 무엇이 넘어가는지 붙은 구조" caption="payload 가 지나는 경로" zoom="false" :::
ClaimCheckReference 참조 위치
:::evidence key="messaging-claim-check-c01" alt="코드베이스에서 ClaimCheckReference 를 검색한 출력 33줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="ClaimCheckReference 코드베이스 검색 — 33줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
이 리프의 위협 모델
경계 진술이 두 클래스에 있다. **"decode perfectly into the wrong object"**가 이 leaf의 위협 모델이다 — 실패가 아니라 잘못된 성공.