2013/11/13 Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> > * Weak consistency (I know, people hear "CAP" and give up too much) won, > which surprised some. > > Because Promises are asynchronous, even locally, the state of the world > when a promise-based request is made differs from the one in which the > request is received. Since partition induces rejection of all promises > across that partition, connection recovery takes distinct paths through the > code where one copes, in an application dependent manner, with having been > out of communication. > > Further support for weak consistency should come at a higher level, e.g., > via the Unum model < > https://www.cypherpunks.to/erights/talks/uni-tea/uni-tea.ppt>. Promises > are a good substrate on which to build Una. >
One of the most compelling approaches I've seen to date to enable eventual consistency at a higher level is the recent work out of Microsoft Research on cloud (data)types. See <http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=163842>. Tim Coppieters, a student of mine, recently implemented the model as a pure JS library, enabling easy replication of state among client and server (node.js). His CloudTypes.js library is available at < https://github.com/ticup/CloudTypes>. I'm pretty excited about the elegance/simplicity of the model. The library is well-documented. Worth a look for those into distributed systems. Cheers, Tom
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
