I just took a quick look. Beside a FIXME there seems to be no usage of the ownership at all, so it should not matter what argument (JID) you use for the ownership at all.
On 28.04.2015 13:28, Denis Washington wrote: > Hi, > > As you might know, I am currently working on implementing project sharing by > non-hosts. It currently works like this: > > - Bob (a non-host) initiates a project negotiation with Alice (the host). If > Alice accepts it, the negotiation proceeds as normal. > > - After having received the project, Alice distributes it to Carl and Dave > (the other session members) by starting a project negotiation with each of > them, just as if she shared the project in the first place (with the > exception that she omits sending it to Bob, who obviously has the project > already). > > When I initially tested this, something strange happened: while code changes > were properly synchronized between Alice, Carl and Dave afterwards, the > changes of Bob were completely ignored. After some analysis, I figured out > that the reason for this lied in the way Saros projects were identified: not > only by their name, but also by the JID of its "owner" - that is, the user > from which the project was received. > > // IncomingProjectNegotiation.java:206 > session.addProjectMapping(projectID, project, peer); > > The problem here is that Bob thinks he "owns" the project (because he shared > it), while the other members of the session assume the owner to be Alice (as > she distributed the project to them). I guess this results in both sides > thinking they are doing changes to different projects, which prevents > synchronization. > > In my (admittedly hacky) draft patch, I addressed this problem by just always > giving "ownership" to the host as far as project identification is concerned: > > session.addProjectMapping(projectID, project, > session.getHost().getJID()); > > This makes everything work as expected. Which makes me wonder: why does the > code have the notion of "project ownership" anyway, given that the host was > the only user that could share (and thus "own") a project? Is this a leftover > of the time where every user could share a project with everyone else > directly? If so, shouldn't this concept be removed from the codebase? > > Regards, > Denis > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud > Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications > Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights > Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y > _______________________________________________ > DPP-Devel mailing list > DPP-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dpp-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ DPP-Devel mailing list DPP-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dpp-devel
