.forge/SPRING-ARC-FINDINGS-1783836352-attempt-4-run-b186f78a8863.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# SPRING-ARC-FINDINGS-1783836352-attempt-4-run-b186f78a8863
+
+Forge 이슈 작업 브랜치 `forge/SPRING-ARC-FINDINGS-1783836352-attempt-4-run-b186f78a8863`.

docs/architecture/adr-payment-boundary.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+# Context
+
+This architectural decision outlines the boundaries for integrating payment processing into our system. The goal is to establish clear guidelines on how payment interactions occur, identifying key components, and their roles.
+
+# Decision
+
+The decision is to utilize a microservices architecture for payment processing. This architecture allows us to scale payments independently, ensures resilience, and aligns with our overall system design principles.
+
+# Alternatives
+
+1. **Monolithic Payment Processing**: A single application handles all payment functionalities.  
+   - **Pros**: Easier to manage as everything is in one place.  
+   - **Cons**: Scalability issues, difficult to maintain, and impacts on deployment of other features.
+
+2. **Hybrid Architecture**: Combining both microservices and monolithic structures.  
+   - **Pros**: Flexibility in managing different components.  
+   - **Cons**: Increased complexity and potential for integration issues.
+
+3. **Serverless Payment Functions**: Utilize serverless architecture for payment processing.  
+   - **Pros**: Low operational overhead, easy scaling.  
+   - **Cons**: Vendor lock-in, potential latency issues.
+
+# Consequences
+
+By adopting a microservices architecture for payment processing, we expect:
+- Improved scalability and maintainability of the payment system.
+- Clear separation of concerns which facilitates independent deployment.
+- Potential challenges in orchestrating multiple services and ensuring transaction integrity.