So you essentially say: Behaviour of the repository is best effort and we --
at the end of the day -- cannot trust the repository ?
Sounds frightening.
IMHO the repository should be failsafe and thus eventually solve the issue
making sure we don't end up with two copies of the same node
What Jukka is saying is that the repository gives you a choice between
consistency and availability. Since both you cannot have.
Michael
On 1.3.13 12:40, Felix Meschberger wrote:
So you essentially say: Behaviour of the repository is best effort and we --
at the end of the day -- cannot
Hi,
Am 01.03.2013 um 13:47 schrieb Michael Dürig:
What Jukka is saying is that the repository gives you a choice between
consistency and availability. Since both you cannot have.
I think you don't want to given the user that choice ...
I'd opt for best possible availability (or probably
hi jukka
I'm not implying that the suggested solution in OAK-660 is wrong
(apologies if that was how I sounded)
ack
, just trying to understand why it was chosen
it's not yet chosen... its work in progress and am still in the
very first iteration (compared to us having up to 5 different
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote:
...What Jukka is saying is that the repository gives you a choice between
consistency and availability. Since both you cannot have
+1 to having that, as long as those choices are made clear to users.
Log messages that
Hi,
What Jukka is saying is that the repository gives you a choice between
consistency and availability. Since both you cannot have.
Actually, I challenge this. You can have both consistency and availability
at the same time. I guess you refer to the CAP theorem, which says you
can't have all of
Hi,
One point of Oak is exactly that: to provide a sensible way for trading
off consistency for availability.
As far as I understood our goals, we want to have a scalable solution.
While I agree that consistency is
important it should however not have an impact on scenarios where it is
On 2 March 2013 01:38, Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.com wrote:
Hi,
One point of Oak is exactly that: to provide a sensible way for trading
off consistency for availability.
As far as I understood our goals, we want to have a scalable solution.
While I agree that consistency is
important it
