This is from the other thread: > Also, when processing at around 160 players/game, the number of 'late' > entries was randomly between 1-10. > Obviously, this is completely > unacceptable as it appears to players that we 'lose' their score!
But it seems more natural fit for this thread. ... One technique I've seen advocated to 'hide' the latency - so that players don't see their score missing. Is when you display the leaderboard - fetching the scoreboard using a standard eventually consistent query (ok, its gone via a backend that has effectively done a 'group by' and cached the result for you) But you have the user-id, so can do a strongly consistent get to get the payers own score. And you alter the leaderbaord for display using the very latest data for just the current player. Their own score is correct. The chances of their even realising they are getting a slightly imperfect view (ie everyone else's score is outdated) is very small. As long as their own score is right. ... ie expect latency, architect so it doesn't matter. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
