On 20.6.12 13:16, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Michael Dürig<[email protected]> wrote:
Yes but... with and without such a lease mechanism my approach is more
general and doesn't hurt anything: if older revisions are available my
approach generates a more fine grained set of events. If older revisions are
not available any more it just gracefully degenerated to your approach. If
in the extreme only two revisions (last observed and latest) are available
it is the same as your approach.
OK, I'm fine with that. This means basically that we don't make
guarantees about things like user data, etc. Should we just drop them
entirely instead of having a vague "they might be there but don't rely
on it" contract?
Leaving userdata out works for me. Not sure what the "spec police" will
say though ;-)
I'd however like to keep a container for the events (i.e. trees before
and after). Currently this is called ChangeSet but I'm fine with a
different name. This is a place where related meta data lives:
timestamp, originating cluster node id, whether this change originated
from a sync or not, session id which generated this change, ... I can't
say which of these and in what form but I'm pretty sure we are going to
need a way to convey additional information to the client.
Michael
BR,
Jukka Zitting
