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>
43 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
43 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
kind: CONCEPT
|
|
slug: adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c21
|
|
title: 이름이 비슷한 두 번역 계열의 출력 계약이 다르다
|
|
topic: transaction-and-consistency-models
|
|
project: clean-architecture-backend-template
|
|
status: 게시 전
|
|
sourceRevision: 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916
|
|
rootTreeNode: concept:adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c21
|
|
evidenceCapturedOn: 2026-09-01
|
|
assets:
|
|
- key: adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c21
|
|
file: ../../../final/evidence/rendered/adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c21.svg
|
|
evidence:
|
|
- ../../../final/evidence/raw/adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c21.txt
|
|
source:
|
|
- 원본 분석 절은 analysis/05-adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa.md#L1358 이다.
|
|
module: adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 이름이 비슷한 두 번역 계열의 출력 계약이 다르다
|
|
|
|
이 scope에는 이름이 비슷한 두 translation mechanism이 있다. 같은 이름 영역을 다루지만 current evidence로는 competing duplicate implementation이 아니다.
|
|
|
|
## 본문
|
|
|
|
<!-- body:start -->
|
|
|
|
이 scope에는 이름이 비슷한 두 translation mechanism이 있다.
|
|
|
|
`PersistenceFailureTranslatorChain`은 raw persistence/provider failure를 받아 `JpaPersistenceException` 계층을 내놓고, `SpringJpaTransactionExecutor`와 retry semantics가 소비한다. 목적은 SQLSTATE/optimistic conflict를 retry/completion semantics에 필요한 stable persistence failure로 바꾸는 것이다.
|
|
|
|
## 분석 원문의 두 계열 비교
|
|
|
|
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c21" alt="분석 문서 analysis/05-adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa.md 에서 이 기록의 근거 절을 그대로 잘라낸 15줄. 코드베이스를 측정한 것이 아니라 원본 판정이 무엇을 적었는지를 보여 준다." caption="analysis/05-adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa.md 발췌 — 15줄" zoom="true"
|
|
:::
|
|
|
|
## 중복 구현이 아니라 출력 계약이 다르다
|
|
|
|
다른 하나의 consumer는 adapter/application error boundary 쪽이다. 따라서 동일 이름 영역을 다루지만 current evidence로는 competing duplicate implementation이 아니다. **transaction retry algebra와 platform operational error mapping이라는 서로 다른 output contract**를 가진다. PostgreSQL vendor translator와 exact SQLSTATE catalog correctness는 vendor sub-scope에서 계속 검증한다.
|
|
|
|
<!-- body:end -->
|