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 | adapter-outbound-notification-c02 | 같은 종료 절차를 쓰지만 대상이 다르다 | composition-and-lifecycle-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-notification-c02 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-notification |
같은 종료 절차를 쓰지만 대상이 다르다
NotificationSchedulerWorker.close와 NotificationBackgroundWorkers.close 둘 다 취소 → shutdown → awaitTermination(grace) → shutdownNow를 수행한다. 형태는 같지만 대상이 다르다.
본문
NotificationSchedulerWorker.close와 NotificationBackgroundWorkers.close 둘 다 "취소 → shutdown → awaitTermination(grace) → shutdownNow"를 수행한다. 형태는 같지만 대상이 다르다(폴링 스레드 + virtual-thread executor 대 단일 데몬 scheduler). 중복 아님.
NotificationSchedulerWorker 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-notification-c02" alt="코드베이스에서 NotificationSchedulerWorker 를 검색한 출력 7줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="NotificationSchedulerWorker 코드베이스 검색 — 7줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
인터럽트가 닿지 않는 한 지점
스케줄러의 close()는 폴링 스레드를 interrupt()하지만(:173), runOnce의 globalConcurrency.acquireUninterruptibly()(:90)는 인터럽트에 반응하지 않는다. 주석(:169)은 "인터럽트가 poll-interval sleep을 깬다"고만 말하고 그 점은 정확하다.
그래도 결함으로 보지 않은 이유
세마포어는 in-flight 작업이 finally에서 반납하므로 결국 풀리고, 최악의 경우 join(shutdownGrace)가 만료된 뒤 종료가 계속된다. 결함 아님.