> The end result in either case is a sequence of events from b1 to h3. If this is fine (and something which cannot be avoided) then cannot we just make the NodeState comparable and avoid synchronizing the merge? As that still allows us to see an ordered flow of changes.
Chetan Mehrotra On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Chetan Mehrotra > <[email protected]> wrote: >> How this would work in a cluster mode. If two nodes in a cluster >> perform commit with (base revision, head revision) [b1,h1] and [b1,h2] >> then how would observation work?. > > Assuming h3 is the result of merging h1 and h2, then: > > * Node A would see local events b1->h1, followed by external events h1->h3. > * Node B would see local events b1->h2, followed by external events h2->h3. > > The end result in either case is a sequence of events from b1 to h3. > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting
