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>
3.4 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 | adapter-outbound-persistence-mongo-c08 | phase를 code table 위에 두는 순서까지 논증돼 있다 | composition-and-lifecycle-models | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-persistence-mongo-c08 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-persistence-mongo |
phase를 code table 위에 두는 순서까지 논증돼 있다
MongoFailureClassifier와 MongoFailureTranslator는 auto-configuration의 실제 bean이고 imperative·reactive 두 executor가 모두 그것을 통해 번역한다. 규칙 사슬은 label → phase → 적용 가능성 → code table → fail closed다.
본문
MongoFailureClassifier와 MongoFailureTranslator는 auto-configuration의 실제 bean이고(MongoPlatformAutoConfiguration:85·92), imperative·reactive 두 executor가 모두 그것을 통해 번역한다. 규칙 사슬도 순서까지 논증돼 있다 — label → phase → 적용 가능성 → code table → fail closed.
Phase sits above the code table because a failure that never reached a server is safe to repeat whatever code accompanies it, and a commit failure is unsafe to replay whatever code accompanies it — both were decided by the code table before, and the code table knows neither.
MongoFailureClassifier 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-persistence-mongo-c08" alt="코드베이스에서 MongoFailureClassifier 를 검색한 출력 31줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="MongoFailureClassifier 코드베이스 검색 — 31줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
고쳐진 결함 네 가지
- 번역기가 phase를 버렸다.
DefaultMongoFailureTranslator가 operationType을 들고도 context-free overload를 불러서, "FIND의 응답 유실 = 재현 가능한 읽기 / UPDATE의 같은 유실 = 결과 불명 쓰기"라는 구분이 transaction이 아닌 모든 경로에서 버려졌다 — 즉 모든 평범한 연산에서. 실패한 읽기가 ambiguous write로 보고됐다. - server-selection이 terminal이었다. label도 code도 없는 실패가
UNCLASSIFIED로 떨어져 재시도 불가로 처리됐다 — 재시도가 명백히 안전한 유일한 경우인데. - Spring 래핑이 분류를 통째로 건너뛰었다.
MongoFailureExtractor가 그 수리다. cause 사슬을 깊이 16까지,IdentityHashMap으로 순환 안전하게 탐색한다("a cycle is about the same object appearing twice"). - message는 절대 읽지 않는다.
MongoDriverFailureView가 driver 예외를 label·code·boolean 둘로 좁히는 지점이고, 그 이후 어느 계층도 나머지에 닿을 수 없다 — "no later layer can reach the rest, because no later layer is ever handed it".
생성자가 조합을 좁히는 지점
MongoFailureClassification의 생성자가 COMMIT_ONLY를 TRANSACTION_COMMIT_UNKNOWN에만 허용하는 것도 §15의 불변식과 맞물린다.