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>
47 lines
2.1 KiB
Markdown
47 lines
2.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
kind: CONCEPT
|
|
slug: adapter-inbound-web-c19
|
|
title: 상속으로 강제하는 계약과 태스크 그래프로 강제하는 계약
|
|
topic: identity-and-value-contracts
|
|
project: clean-architecture-backend-template
|
|
status: 게시 전
|
|
sourceRevision: 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916
|
|
rootTreeNode: concept:adapter-inbound-web-c19
|
|
evidenceCapturedOn: 2026-09-01
|
|
assets:
|
|
- key: adapter-inbound-web-c19
|
|
file: ../../../final/evidence/rendered/adapter-inbound-web-c19.svg
|
|
evidence:
|
|
- ../../../final/evidence/raw/adapter-inbound-web-c19.txt
|
|
source:
|
|
- 원본 분석 절은 analysis/14-adapter-inbound-web.md#L1555 이다.
|
|
module: 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
|
|
|
|
<!-- body:start -->
|
|
|
|
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 | `webCrossStackParityTest`가 세 기록을 비교하고, 하나라도 없으면 실패 |
|
|
|
|
## 빠진 것을 잡는 장치가 왜 필요한가
|
|
|
|
web 쪽이 구조적으로 우월하다. `build.gradle`이 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"
|
|
:::
|
|
|
|
<!-- body:end -->
|