On 11 Jul 2006, at 15:24, Bill de hÓra wrote:
I have a doubt that people who want sync actually want best-effort
against data loss. Merge semantics sure, but not lost updates. Tho'
at the moment, I'm playing fetch me a rock out of courtesy, since
those pro sync haven't said what they want to achieve, assuming I
have't missed it. I'd appreciate it if some design intent was
brought to the table.
cheers
Bill
As I understand it nobody wants anything that is "absolutely
guaranteed to avoid lost updates". Tim Bray just wants to be able to
distinguish his "small updates", so that he can spare the world from
his spring spelling cleaning, yet still be able to have his editor
synchronize updates while he is traveling around the world. He also
wants to avoid having to wait five days while his editor does a HEAD
on every resource he posted.
Those are the requirements.
We are not trying to do synchronization down to a T so that we can
use APP to rob a bank whilst traveling in different space ships
moving at the speed of light.
Henry
Home page: http://bblfish.net/
Sun Blog: http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/
