Bridge Review: Semester 5 Operating Systems and Networking -> Databases and Distributed Systems -> Semester 7 Architecture and DDD
Required Output Classification
| Required output | Classification | Public/private guidance |
|---|---|---|
| Incoming-dependency notes and bridge self-checks | Practice artifact | Keep as working notes unless rewritten into a reusable study guide. |
| Integration task response and forward-bridge plan | Checkpoint evidence | Store as private readiness evidence that shows why you are prepared for the next semester. |
| Any refined diagram, ADR, runbook excerpt, benchmark summary, or capstone thread pulled from the bridge review | Portfolio candidate | Polish and sanitize before publishing; keep raw bridge reasoning private if it exposes weak areas or coursework-only context. |
This review connects the current semester to the roadmap around it. Complete it after the cumulative review and before starting the next semester.
Incoming Dependencies
From Semester 5 Operating Systems and Networking, identify the skills that were required for this semester. For each one, write one example of where it appeared in real work.
Current Semester Spine
The ideas that should now be active:
- data modeling
- transactions
- replication tradeoffs
- query evidence
For each item, write:
- one definition in your own words
- one example from this semester's artifact
- one mistake or edge case that clarified the idea
Forward Bridge
Before entering Semester 7 Architecture and DDD, answer:
- What will the next semester assume you can do without warm-up?
- Which current artifact can become input for the next semester?
- Which weak area would create the most friction if ignored?
- What spaced-repetition cards or drills should stay active for four more weeks?
Integration Task
Write a one-page memo titled How Databases and Distributed Systems changes the way I approach Semester 7 Architecture and DDD.
The memo must include:
- one concept carried forward
- one concrete artifact link or path
- one tradeoff you understand better now
- one question you expect the next semester to answer
Relational-contract evidence
Require every SQL1–SQL6 gate at level 2 or above. Reuse schema constraints, exact result predictions, adversarial fixtures and transaction failure evidence. SQLite checks do not replace PostgreSQL plans or multi-session observations. A failed gate remains incomplete regardless of aggregate marks. See the reconciled workload.
Storage-contract evidence
Require all ST1–ST6 gates at level 2 or above. Reuse bounded-record traces, recovery-prefix cases, compaction-scope counterexamples, disk/index integration and publication assumptions. Replay and reopen checks do not establish hardware durability. Missing gates remain incomplete regardless of aggregate marks.
Replica-session evidence
Require all RP1–RP6 gates at level 2 or above. Reuse received/applied-prefix traces, monotonic session tokens and explicit blocked/unavailable outcomes. The single-history model does not prove failover safety, cross-shard snapshots or ownership transfer; original migration evidence remains required. Failed gates remain incomplete regardless of aggregate marks.
Transaction-delivery evidence
Require all TX1–TX6 gates at level 2 or above. Reuse producer/outbox and consumer/inbox failure traces, duplicate delivery and retention/ordering limits. Local database effects do not establish exactly-once external actions. Original isolation, WAL and saga evidence remains required; failed gates are incomplete regardless of aggregate score.
Distributed-clock evidence
Require all DS1–DS6 gates at level 2 or above. Reuse event graphs, independent reachability checks, scalar-order counterexamples and immutable timestamp evidence. Clock calculations do not replace failure-detector, Raft or retry-safety evidence. Missing gates remain incomplete regardless of aggregate score.
Integrated completion contract
Use the 512–743-hour workload and progression contract. All 33 module gates (including DB1–DB3) and all four D1–D4 privacy/retrieval categories must pass independently alongside original project, exam, checkpoint and integrity requirements. Reuse evidence and count time once; independent review and timing pilots remain pending.